(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "International law documents : international agreements with notes and index, 1924"

NAVAL WAR COLLEGE 



INTERNATIONAL LAW 
DOCUMENTS 



v 



INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS 

WITH NOTES AND 
INDEX 



1924 




WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1926 



ADDITIONAL COPIES 

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FEOM 

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

AT 

65 CENTS PER COPY 
II 



PREFACE 



The discussions upon questions of international law before the 
class of 1924 at the Naval War College, Newport, R. I., were, as in 
recent years, conducted by George Grafton Wilson, LL. D., pro- 
fessor of international law in Harvard University. 

The problems submitted to the class and their subsequent discus- 
sion required consultation of many documents, treaties, opinions, 
and writings. Some of the documents and opinions have been pub- 
lished by the Naval War College in earlier volumes. In this vol- 
ume for 1924 there are published some of the ratified international 
agreements now binding upon the United States or upon other 
States, as well as some of the proposed but unratified agreements 
which have attracted international notice. 

C. S. Williams, 
Rear Admiral, U. S. Navy, 
President, Naval War College. 



May 28, 1925. 



hi 



CONTENTS 



Page 

Preliminary note vn 

Limitation of armament: 

Washington treaty, February 6, 1922 1 

Central American treaty, February 7, 1923 20 

Possessions in Pacific Ocean : 

Treaty, December 13, 1921 23 

Supplementary agreement, February 6, 1922 28 

Nicaraguan Canal route, convention, August 5, 1914 31 

Danish West Indies, convention, August 4, 1916 35 

Spitzbergen, treaty, February 9, 1920 45 

Neutralization Aaland Islands, convention, October 20, 1921 56 

Mandates : 

Syria and Lebanon, April 4, 1924 61 

Ruanda-Urundi, April 18, 1923, January 21, 1924 67 

Island of Yap, February 11, 1922 73 

Nauru, December 17, 1920 80 

Japanese declaration on "C" mandates 82 

Right to a flag, Barcelona, April 20, 1921 83 

Halibut fishery, March 2, 1923 84 

Smuggling of intoxicating liquors : 

United States and Great Britain, January 23, 1924 88 

United States and Panama, June 6, 1924 91 

Radio and aerial: 

Report, commission of jurists, February 19, 1923 96 

Convention, Norway-Sweden, May 26, 1923 154 

Geneva protocol, October 2, 1924 164 

v 



INTERNATIONAL LAW DOCUMENTS— INTERNATIONAL 

AGREEMENTS 



Preliminary note. — In the Naval War College publications on 
international law issued since 1914 many documents bearing upon 
international relations and problems which may be within the scope 
of naval operations have been printed. The volumes of 1915 and 
1916 gave particular attention to the documents relating to neutral- 
ity, that of 1917 to the breaking of diplomatic relations and the 
opening of hostilities, and that of 1918 to the conduct and con- 
clusion of hostilities, while the volumes of 1919 and 1920 contained 
the treaties of peace with Germany, Austria, and Hungary. The 
volume for 1921 presented documents of the Washington Confer- 
ence on the Limitation of Armaments, particularly as concerned 
naval relations. 

As many decisions involving maritime affairs and the conduct of 
hostilities were rendered in national and international tribunals 
during and subsequent to the World War, the volumes of 1922 and 
1923 gave the texts of some of these decisions. 

The attempts to stabilize conditions after the World War led to 
the negotiation of international agreements of a type somewhat 
different from those of the prior period, and some of these which 
have been ratified and are operative, as well as some which have been 
proposed and may or may not become operative, are printed in this 
volume for 1924. Among the most significant of these are the rati- 
fied treaties on the limitation of armament and the proposed Geneva 
protocol for the pacific settlement of international disputes. There 
are also printed some other international agreements which bear upon 
maritime relations and jurisdiction. 

The eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States, the prohibition amendment, and the legislation passed to put 
it into operation somewhat changed the ordinary practice in regard 
to the exercise of authority within jurisdictional waters, leading to 
the negotiation of subsequent treaties admitting a sliding scale of 
distance within which the coast authorities under specified condi- 



tions might act. 



VII 



VIII 

Special international agreements have changed the status of areas 
in such fashion as to be significant, and types of these have also 
been inserted, such as those relating to mandated and neutralized 
areas. 

International agreements relating to many other matters not com- 
monly covered in early treaties have been made since the World 
War, as well as new agreements upon matters previously covered. 
The agreements have been so numerous and some of them so detailed 
in character that it is not possible to give them within available 
space. 



LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT 

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, 
FRANCE, ITALY, AND JAPAN ^LIMITATION OF NAVAL ARMA- 
MENT 2 

[Signed at Washington, February 6, 1922 ; ratification advised by the Senate, March 29, 
1922 ; ratified by the President, June 9, 1923 ; ratifications deposited with the Govern- 
ment of the United States, August 17, 1923 ; proclaimed, August 21, 1923] 

By the President of the United States of America 

A PKOCLAMATION 

Whereas a Treaty between the United States of America, the 
British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, agreeing to a limitation of 
naval armament, was concluded and signed by their respective pleni- 
potentiaries at Washington on February 6, 1922, the original of 
which Treaty, in the English and French languages, is word for word 
as follows: 

The United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy 
and Japan; 

Desiring to contribute to the maintenance of the general peace, and 
to reduce the burdens of competition in armament ; 

Have resolved, with a view to accomplishing these purposes, to 
conclude a treaty to limit their respective naval armament, and to 
that end have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries ; 
The President of the United States of America : 
Charles Evans Hughes, 
Henry Cabot Lodge, 
Oscar W. Underwood, 
Elihu Root, 

citizens of the United States: 



1 Treaty Series, No. G71. 

2 Discussions on the negotiation of this treaty will be found in the Naval War College 
International Law Documents, 1921, and in the official report, English and French, as 
well as the French text of the treaty, " Conference on the Limitation of Armament, 
November 12, 1921-February 6, 1922," published by the Government Printing Office. 
The report of the American delegation to the President will be found in the Naval War 
College Documents at page 257. This treaty was not ratified at the time of the publi- 
cation of the Naval War College International Law Documents, 1921, but is now in force 
and ratified as here printed. 

57920—26 2 1 



2 FIVE POWER, LIMITATION OF NAVAL ARMAMENT 

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor 
of India : 

The Eight Honourable Arthur James Balfour, O. M., M. P., 

Lord President of His Privy Council ; 
The Eight Honourable Baron Lee of Fareham, G. B. E., 

K. C. B., First Lord of His Admiralty; 
The Eight Honourable Sir Auckland Campbell Geddes, K. C. 
B., His Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to 
the United States of America ; 
and 

for the Dominion of Canada : 

The Eight Honourable Sir Eobert Laird Borden, G. C. M. G., 
K. C; 
for the Commonwealth of Australia : 

Senator the Eight Honourable George Foster Pearce, Minister 
for Home and Territories ; 
for the Dominion of New Zealand : 

The Honourable Sir John William Salmond, K. O, Judge of 
the Supreme Court of New Zealand ; 
for the Union of South Africa : 

The Eight Honourable Arthur James Balfour, O. M., M. P. ; 
for India: 

The Eight Honourable Valingham Sankaranarayana Srini- 
vasa Sastri, Member of the Indian Council of State ; 
The President of the French Eepublic : 

Mr. Albert Sarraut, Deputy, Minister of the Colonies; 
Mr. Jules J. Jusserand, Ambassador Extraordinary and Pleni- 
potentiary to the United States of America, Grand Cross of 
the National Order of the Legion of Honour ; 
His Majesty the King of Italy : 

The Honourable Carlo Schanzer, Senator of the Kingdom; 
The Honourable Vittorio Eolandi Eicci, Senator of the King- 
dom, His Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 
at Washington ; 
The Honourable Luigi Albertini, Senator of the Kingdom; 
His Majesty the Emperor of Japan : 

Baron Tomosaburo Kato, Minister for the Navy, Junii, 
a member of the First Class of the Imperial Order of 
the Grand Cordon of the Eising Sun with the Paulownia 
Flower ; 
Baron Kijuro Shidehara, His Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary at Washington, Joshii, a member 
of the First Class of the Imperial Order of the Eising 
Sun; 



GENERAL PROVISIONS 3 

Mr. Masanao Hanihara, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, 

Jushii, a member of the Second Class of the Imperial 

Order of the Rising Sun; 

Who, having communicated to each other their respective full 

powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed as follows: 

CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE LIMITATION 

OF NAVAL ARMAMENT 

Article I 

The Contracting Powers agree to limit their respective naval 
armament as provided in the present Treaty. 

Article II 

The Contracting Powers may retain respectively the capital ships 
which are specified in Chapter II, Part 1. On the coming into force 
of the present Treaty, but subject to the following provisions of 
this Article, all other capital ships, built or building, of the United 
States, the British Empire and Japan shall be disposed of as pre- 
scribed in Chapter II, Part 2. 

In addition to the capital ships specified in Chapter II, Part 1, 
the United States may complete and retain two ships of the West 
Virginia class now under construction. On the completion of these two 
ships the North Dakota and Delaware shall be disposed of as pre- 
scribed in Chapter II, Part 2. 

The British Empire may, in accordance with the replacement 
table in Chapter II, Part 3, construct two new capital ships not 
exceeding 35,000 tons (35,560 metric tons) standard displacement 
each. On the completion of the said two ships the Thunderer, King 
George F, Ajax and Centurion shall be disposed of as prescribed 
in Chapter II, Part 2. 

Article III 

Subject to the provisions of Article II, the Contracting Powers 
shall abandon their respective capital ship building programs, and 
no new capital ships shall be constructed or acquired by any of 
the Contracting Powers except replacement tonnage which may be 
constructed or acquired as specified in Chapter II, Part 3. 

Ships which are replaced in accordance with Chapter II, Part 
3, shall be disposed of as prescribed in Part 2 of that Chapter. 

Article IV 

The total capital ship replacement tonnage of each of the Con- 
tracting Powers shall not exceed in standard displacement, for the 



4 FIVE POWER, LIMITATION OF NAVAL ARMAMENT 

United States 525,000 tons (533,400 metric tons) ; for the British 
Empire 525,000 tons (533,400 metric tons) ; for France 175,000 
tons (177,800 metric tons) ; for Italy 175,000 tons (177,800 metric 
tons) ; for Japan 315,000 tons (320,040 metric tons). 

Article V 

No capital ship exceeding 35,000 tons (35,560 metric tons) stand- 
ard displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or 
within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers. 

Article VI 

No capital ship of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry a 
gun with a calibre in excess of 16 inches (406 millimetres). 

Article VII 

The total tonnage for aircraft carriers of each of the Contract- 
ing Powers shall not exceed in standard displacement, for the 
United States 135,000 tons (137,160 metric tons) ; for the British 
Empire 135,000 tons (137,160 metric tons) ; for France 60,000 tons 
(60,960 metric tons) ; for Italy 60,000 tons (60,960 metric tons) ; 
for Japan 81,000 tons (82,296 metric tons). 

Article VIII 

The replacement of aircraft carriers shall be effected only as 
prescribed in Chapter II, Part 3, provided, however, that all air- 
craft carrier tonnage in existence or building on November 12, 
1921, shall be considered experimental, and may be replaced, within 
the total tonnage limit prescribed in Article VII, without regard 
to its age. 

Article IX 

No aircraft carrier exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) 
standard displacement shall be acquired by, or constructed by, 
for or within the jurisdiction of, any of the Contracting Powers. 

However, any of the Contracting Powers may, provided that 
its total tonnage allowance of aircraft carriers is not thereby ex- 
ceeded, build not more than two aircraft carriers, each of a tonnage 
of not more than 33,000 tons (33,528 metric tons) standard dis- 
placement, and in order to effect economy any of the Contracting 
Powers may use for this purpose any two of their ships, whether 
constructed or in course of construction, which would otherwise 



AIECEAFT CAEEIEES O 

be scrapped under the provisions of Article II. The armament 
of any aircraft carriers exceeding 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) 
standard displacement shall be in accordance with the requirements 
of Article X, except that the total number of guns to be carried 
in case any of such guns be of a calibre exceeding 6 inches (152 
millimetres), except anti-aircraft guns and guns not exceeding 5 
inches (127 millimetres), shall not exceed eight. 

Article X 

No aircraft carrier of any of the Contracting Powers shall carry 
a gun with a calibre in excess of 8 inches (203 millimetres). With- 
out prejudice to the provisions of Article IX, if the armament car- 
ried includes guns exceeding 6 inches (152 millimetres) in calibre 
the total number of guns carried, except anti-aircraft guns and guns 
not exceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres), shall not exceed ten. If 
alternatively the armament contains no guns exceeding 6 inches (152 
millimetres) in calibre, the number of guns is not limited. In 
either case the number of anti-aircraft guns and of guns not ex-. 
ceeding 5 inches (127 millimetres) is not limited. 

Article XI 

No vessel of war exceeding 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) 
standard displacement, other than a capital ship or aircraft carrier, 
shall be acquired by, or constructed by, for, or Avithin the jurisdic- 
tion of, any of the Contracting Powers. Vessels not specifically 
built as fighting ships nor taken in time of peace under government 
control for fighting purposes, which are employed on fleet duties 
or as troop transports or in some other way for the purpose of assist- 
ing in the prosecution of hostilities otherwise than as fighting ships ? 
shall not be within the limitations of this Article. 

Article XII 

No vessel of war of any of the Contracting Powers, hereafter laid 
down, other than a capital ship, shall carry a gun with a calibre in 
excess of 8 inches (203 millimetres). 

Article XIII 

Except as provided in Article IX, no ship designated in the pres- 
ent Treaty to be scrapped may be reconverted into a vessel of war. 

Article XIV 

No preparations shall be made in merchant ships in time of peace 
for the installation of warlike armaments for the purpose of con- 



6 FIVE POWER, LIMITATION OF NAVAL ARMAMENT 

verting such ships into vessels of war, other than the necessary 
stiffening of decks for the mounting of guns not exceeding 6 inch 
(152 millimetres) calibre. 

Article XV 

No vessel of war constructed within the jurisdiction of any of the 
Contracting Powers for a non- Contracting Power shall exceed the 
limitations as to displacement and armament prescribed by the 
present Treaty for vessels of a similar type which may be constructed 
by or for any of the Contracting Powers ; provided, however, that the 
displacement for aircraft carriers constructed for a non- Contracting 
Power shall in no case exceed 27,000 tons (27,432 metric tons) stand- 
ard displacement. 

Article XVI 

If the construction of any vessel of war for a non -Contracting 
Power is undertaken within the jurisdiction of any of the Contract- 
ing Powers, such Power shall promptly inform the other Contract- 
ing Powers of the date of the signing of the contract and the date on 
which the keel of the ship is laid; and shall also communicate to 
them the particulars relating to the ship prescribed in Chapter II, 
Part 3, Section I (b), (4) and (5). 

Article XVII 

In the event of a Contracting Power being engaged in war, such 
Power shall not use as a vessel of war any vessel of war which may 
be under construction within its jurisdiction for any other Power, 
or which may have been constructed within its jurisdiction for 
another Power and not delivered. 

Article XVIII 

Each of the Contracting Powers undertakes not to dispose by 
gift, sale or any mode of transfer of any vessel of war in such a 
manner that such vessel may become a vessel of war in the Navy 
of any foreign Power. 

Article XIX 

The United States, the British Empire and Japan agree that the 
status quo at the time of the signing of the present Treaty, with 
regard to fortifications and naval bases, shall be maintained in their 
respective territories and possessions specified hereunder: 

(1) The insular possessions which the United States now holds or 
may hereafter acquire in the Pacific Ocean, except (a) those adja- 
cent to the coast of the United States, Alaska and the Panama Canal 



RETAINED SHIPS 7 

Zone, not including the Aleutian Islands, and (b) the Hawaiian 
Islands ; 

(2) Hongkong and the insular possessions which the British 
Empire now holds or may hereafter acquire in the Pacific Ocean, 
east of the meridian of 110° east longitude, except (a) those adja- 
cent to the coast of Canada, (b) the Common wealth of Australia 
and its Territories, and (c) New Zealand; 

(3) The following insular territories and possessions of Japan 
in the Pacific Ocean, to wit : the Kurile Islands, the Bonin Islands, 
Amami-Oshima, the Loochoo Islands, Formosa and the Pescadores, 
and any insular territories or possessions in the Pacific Ocean which 
Japan may hereafter acquire. 

The maintenance of the status quo under the foregoing provisions 
implies that no new fortifications or naval bases shall be established 
in the territories and possessions specified; that no measures shall 
be taken to increase the existing naval facilities for the repair and 
maintenance of naval forces, and that no increase shall be made in 
the coast defences of the territories and possessions above specified. 
This restriction, however, does not preclude such repair and replace- 
ment of worn-out weapons and equipment as is customary in naval 
and military establishments in time of peace. 

Article XX 

The rules for determining tonnage displacement prescribed in 
Chapter II, Part 4, shall apply to the ships of each of the Contract- 
ing Powers. 

CHAPTER II. RULES RELATING TO THE EXECUTION OF THE 
TREATY— DEFINITION OF TERMS 

Part 1. Capital Ships Which May Be Retained by the Con- 
tracting Powers 

In accordance with Article II ships may be retained by each of the 
Contracting Powers as specified in this Part. 

Ships ivhich may he retained by the United States 



Name : Tonnage 

Maryland 32,600 

California 32, 300 

Tennessee 32, 300 

Idaho 32, 000 

New Mexico 32,000 

Mississippi 32, 000 

Arizona 31, 400 

Pennsylvania 31, 400 

Oklahoma 27,500 

Nevada 27, 500 



Name — Continued. Tonnage 

New York. 27,000 

Texas 1 27, 000 

Arkansas 26,000 

Wyoming 26,000 

Florida 21,825 

Utab 21, 825 

North Dakota 20,000 

Delaware 20,000 



Total tonnage 500,650 



8 



FIVE POWER, LIMITATION OF NAVAL ARMAMENT 



On the completion of the two ships of the West Virginia class and 
the scrapping of the North Dakota and Delatvare, as provided in 
Article II, the total tonnage to be retained by the United States will 
be 525,850 tons. 

Ships which may be retained by the British Empire 



Name : Tonnage 

Royal Sovereign 25, 750 

Royal Oak 25,750 

Revenge 25, 750 

Resolution 25,750 

Ramillies 25,750 

Malaya 27,500 

Valiant 27, 500 

Barham 27, 500 

Queen Elizabeth 27, 500 

Warspite_ 27, 500 

Benbow 25, 000 

Emperor of India 25,000 Total tonnage 580,450 

On the completion of the two new ships to be constructed and the 
scrapping of the Thundrer, King George V, Ajax and Centurion, 
as provided in Article II, the total tonnage to be retained by the 
British Empire will be 558,950 tons. 



Name — Continued. Tonnage 

Iron Duke 25,000 

Marlborough 25,000 

Hood 41,200 

Renown 26, 500 

Repulse 26, 500 

Tiger 28, 500 

Thunderer 22,500 

King George V 23,000 

Ajax_ 23, 000 

Centurion 23, 000 



Ships which may be retained by France 



Tonnage 
Nome : (metric tons) 

Bretagne 23, 500 

Lorraine 23, 500 

Provence 23, 500 

Paris 23,500 

France 23,500 

Jean Bart 23,500 



Tonnage 
Name — Continued. (metric tons) 

Courbet 23, 500 

Condorcet 18, 890 

Diderot 18, 890 

Voltaire 18, 890 



Total tonnage 221, 170 



France may lay down new tonnage in the years 1927, 1929, and 
1931, as provided in Part 3, Section II. 



Ships which may be retained by Italy 



Tonnage 
Name I (metric tons) 

Andrea Doria 22, 700 

Caio Duilio 22,700 

Conte Di Cavour 22,500 

Giulio Cesare 22,500 

Leonardo Da Vinci 22,500 

Dante Alighieri 19,500 



Tonnage 
Name — Continued. (metric tons) 

Roma 12,600 

Napoli 12,600 

Vittorio Emanuele 12, 600 

Regina Elena 12,600 



Total tonnage 182,800 



Italy may lay down new tonnage in the years 1927, 1929, and 
1931, as provided in Part 3, Section II. 



RULES FOR SCRAPPING 



9 



Ships which may be retained by Japan 



Name : Tonnage 

Mutsu 33, 800 

Nagato 33,800 

Hiuga 31,260 

Ise 31, 260 

Yamashiro 30, 600 

Fu-So 30, 600 



Name — Continued. Tonnage 

Kirishima 27, 500 

Haruna 27, 500 

Hiyei 27,500 

Kongo 27, 500 



Total tonnage 301,320 



Part 2. Rules for Scrapping Vessels of War 

The following rules shall be observed for the scrapping of vessels 
of war which are to be disposed of in accordance with Articles 
II and III. 

I. A vessel to be scrapped must be placed in such condition that it 
cannot be put to combatant use. 

II. This result must be finally effected in any one of the following 
ways: 

(a) Permanent sinking of the vessel; 

(b) Breaking the vessel up. This shall always involve the 

destruction or removal of all machinery, boilers and 
armour, and all deck, side and bottom plating ; 

(c) Converting the vessel to target use exclusively. In such 

case all the provisions of paragraph III of this Part, 
except subparagraph (6), in so far as may be necessary 
to enable the ship to be used as a mobile target, and 
except sub-paragraph (-7), must be previously com- 
plied with. Not more than one capital ship may be 
retained for this purpose at one time by any of the 
Contracting Powers. 

(d) Of the capital ships which would otherwise be scrapped 

under the present Treaty in or after the year 1931, 
France and Italy may each retain two sea-going ves- 
sels for training purposes exclusively, that is, as gun- 
nery or torpedo schools. The two vessels retained by 
France shall be of the Jean Bart class and of those 
retained by Italy one shall be the Dante Alighieri, the 
other of the Giulio Cesare class. On retaining these 
ships for the purpose above stated, France and Italy 
respectively undertake to remove and destroy their 
conning-towers, and not to use the said ships as vessels 
of war. 

III. (a) Subject to the special exceptions contained in Article IX, 

when a vessel is due for scrapping, the first stage of 
scrapping, which consists in rendering a ship incapable 
of further warlike service, shall be immediately under- 
taken. 



10 FIVE POWER, LIMITATION OF NAVAL AKMAMENT 

(b) A vessel shall be considered incapable of further warlike 
service when there shall have been removed and landed, 
or else destroyed in the ship : 

(1) All guns and essential portions of guns, fire- 

control tops and revolving parts of all bar- 
bettes and turrets; 

(2) All machinery for working hydraulic or elec- 

tric mountings ; 

(3) All fire-control instruments and range-finders; 

(4) All ammunition, explosives and mines; 

(5) All torpedoes, war-heads and torpedo tubes; 

(6) All wireless telegraphy installations; 

(7) The conning tower and all side armour, or alter- 

natively all main propelling machinery ; and 

(8) All landing and flying-off platforms and all other 

aviation accessories. 
IV. The periods in which scrapping of vessels is to be effected are 
as follows : 

(a) In the case of vessels to be scrapped under the first para- 

graph of Article II, the work of rendering the vessels 
incapable of further warlike service, in accordance with 
paragraph III of this Part, shall be completed within 
six months from the coming into force of the present 
Treaty, and the scrapping shall be finally effected within 
eighteen months from such coming into force. 

(b) In the case of vessels to be scrapped under the second 

and third paragraphs of Article II, or under Article 
III, the work of rendering the vessel incapable of fur- 
ther warlike service in accordance with paragraph III 
of this Part shall be commenced not later than the date 
of completion of its successor, and shall be finished 
within six months from the date of such completion. 
The vessel shall be finally scrapped, in accordance with 
paragraph II of this Part, within eighteen months from 
the date of completion of its successor. If, however, 
the completion of the new vessel be delayed, then the 
work of rendering the old vessel incapable of further 
warlike service in accordance with paragraph III of 
this Part shall be commenced within four years from 
the laying of the keel of the new vessel, and shall be 
finished within six months from the date on which such 
work was commenced, and the old vessel shall be finally 
scrapped in accordance with paragraph II of this Part 
within eighteen months from the date when the work 



REPLACEMENT 11 

of rendering it incapable of further warlike service 
was commenced. 

Part 3. Replacement 

The replacement of capital ships and aircraft carriers shall take 
place according to the rules in Section I and the tables in Section 
II of this Part. 

SECTION I. RULES FOR REPLACEMENT 

(a) Capital ships and aircraft carriers twenty years after the 
date of their completion may, except as otherwise provided in 
Article VIII and in the tables in Section II of this Part, be re- 
placed by new construction, but within the limits prescribed in 
Article IV and Article VII. The keels of such new construction 
may, except as otherwise provided in Article VIII and in the tables 
in Section II of this Part, be laid down not earlier than seventeen 
years from the date of completion of the tonnage to be replaced, 
provided, however, that no capital ship tonnage, with the exception 
of the ships referred to in the third paragraph of Article II, and 
the replacement tonnage specifically mentioned in Section II of 
this Part, shall be laid down until ten years from November 12, 1921. 

(b) Each of the Contracting Powers shall communicate promptly 
to each of the other Contracting Powers the following information : 

(1) The names of the capital ships and aircraft carriers to 

be replaced by new construction; 

(2) The date of governmental authorization of replacement 

tonnage ; 

(3) The date of laying the keels of replacement tonnage; 

(4) The standard displacement in tons and metric tons of 

each new ship to be laid down, and the principal dimen- 
sions, namely, length at waterline, extreme beam at or 
below waterline, mean draft at standard displacement; 

(5) The date of completion of each new ship and its stand- 

ard displacement in tons and metric tons, and the 
principal dimensions, namely, length at waterline, ex- 
treme beam at or below waterline, mean draft at stand- 
ard displacement, at time of completion. 

(c) In case of loss or accidental destruction of capital ships or 
aircraft carriers, they may immediately be replaced by new construc- 
tion subject to the tonnage limits prescribed in Articles IV and 
VII and in conformity with the other provisions of the present 
Treaty, the regular replacement program being deemed to be ad- 
vanced to that extent. 

(d) No retained capital ships or aircraft carriers shall be recon- 
structed except for the purpose of providing means of defense 



12 



FIVE POWER, LIMITATION OP NAVAL ARMAMENT 



against air and submarine attack, and subject to the following- 
rules : The Contracting Powers may, for that purpose, equip exist- 
ing tonnage with bulge or blister or anti-air attack deck protection,, 
providing the increase of displacement thus effected does not exceed 
3,000 tons (3,048 metric tons) displacement for each ship. No altera- 
tions in side armor, in calibre, number or general type of mounting 
of main armament shall be permitted except: 

(1) in the case of France and Italy, which countries within 

the limits allowed for bulge may increase their armor 
protection and the calibre of the guns now carried on 
their existing capital ships so as not to exceed 16 inches 
(406 millimeters) and 

(2) the British Empire shall be permitted to complete, in the 

case of the Renown, the alterations to armor that have 
already been commenced but temporarily suspended. 



SECTION II. REPLACEMENT AND SCRAPPING OF CAPITAL SHIPS 

UNITED STATES 





Ships laid 
down 


Ships com- 
pleted 


Ships scrapped (age in parentheses) 


Ships retained — 
Summary 


Year 


Pre- Post- 
Jutland 


1922 




A, B 2 


Maine (20), Missouri (20), Virginia (17), 
Nebraska (17), Georgia (17), New Jersey 
(17), Rhode Island (17), Connecticut 
(17), Louisiana (17), Vermont (16), Kan- 
sas (16), Minnesota (16), New Hamp- 
shire (15), South Carolina (13), Michigan 
(13), Washington (0), South Dakota (0), 
Indiana (0), Montana (0), North Caro- 
lina (0), Iowa (0), Massachusetts (0), 
Lexington (0), Constitution (0), Constel- 
lation (0), Saratoga (0), Ranger (0), 
United States (0).» 

Delaware (12), North Dakota (12) 


17 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

12 

9 

7 

5 

4 

2 

1 






1 

3- 


1923 








3 


1924 


i 




3 


1925 






3 


192G 








3 


1927 








3 


1928 








3 


1929 






3 


193C 








3 


1931 


C, D 







3 


1932 


E, F 




3 


1933 


G. . 






3 


1934 


H, I 


C,D 

E, F 


Florida (23), Utah (23), Wyoming (22) 

Arkansas (23), Texas (21), New York (21). 
Nevada (20), Oklahoma (20) 


5 


1935 


J 


7 


1936 


K, L 

M 


G... 


8 


1937 


H,I 

J 

K, L__ 


Arizona (21), Pennsylvania (21) 


10 


1938 


N, O 

P, Q_- 


Mississippi (21) .. 


11 


1939 


New Mexico (21), Idaho (20) 


13 


1940 




M 


Tennessee (20) . 


14 


1941 




N, O 

P, Q 


California (20), Mar viand (20) 


15 


1942 




2 ships West Virginia class. . 


15 









1 The United States may retain the Oregon and Illinois, for noncombatant purposes, after complying 
with the provisions of Part 2, III, (6). 

2 Two West Virginia class. 

Note. — A, B, C, D, etc., represent individual capital ships of 35,000 tons standard displacement, laid 
down and completed in the years specified. 



KEPLACEMENT 



13 



SECTION II. REPLACEMENT AND SCRAPPING OF CAPITAL SHIPS — Continued 

BRITISH EMPIRE 



Year 



1922. 
1923- 
1924. 
1925. 

1926. 
1927. 
1928. 
1929. 
1930. 
1931. 
1932. 
1933- 
1934. 

1935. 

1936. 
1937. 
1938. 
1939. 
1940. 
1941. 
1942. 



Ships laid 
down 



A, B<_ 



. C, D. 

J E, F_ 

J G.... 

H, I.. 



K, L. 

M.__ 
N, O. 
P, Q. 



Ships com- 
pleted 



A, B. 



Ships scrapped (age in parentheses) 



Commonwealth (16), Agamemnon (13), 
Dreadnought (15), Bellerophon (12), St. 
Vincent (11), Inflexible (13), Superb (12), 
Neptune (10), Hercules (10), Indomita- 
ble (13), Temeraire (12), New Zealand 
(9), Lion (9), Princess Royal (9), Con- 
queror (9), Monarch (9), Orion (9), 
Australia (8), Agincourt (7), Erin (7), 
4 building or projected. 3 



King George V (13), Ajax (12), Centurion 
(12), Thunderer (13). 



C,D. 

E, F. 

G.__. 
H.I.. 
J 

K, L. 

M.._. 
N, O. 

P, Q- 



Iron Duke (20), Marlborough (20), Em- 
peror of India (20), Benbow (20). 
Tiger (21), Queen Elizabeth (20), Warspite 
(20),Barham (20). 

Malaya (20), Royal Sovereign (20) 

Revenge (21), Resolution (21) 

Royal Oak (22) 

Valiant (23), Repulse (23) 

Renown (24) 

Ramillies (24), Hood (21) 

A (17), B (17) 



Ships retained- 
Summary 



Pre- 



Post- 



Jutland 



21 



21 


1 


21 


1 


21 


1 


17 


3 


17 


3 


17 


3 


17 


3 


17 


3 


17 


3 


17 


3 


17 


3 


17 


3 


13 


5 


9 


7 


7 


8 


5 


10 


4 


11 


2 


13 


1 


14 





15 





15 



3 The British Empire may retain the Colossus and Collingwood for noncombatant purposes, after com- 
plying with the provisions of Part 2, III, (6). 

4 Two 35,000-ton ships, standard displacement. 

Note. — A, B, C, D, etc., represent individual capital ships of 35,000 tons standard displacement laid 
*down and completed in the years specified. 

FRANCE 



1922 








7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
5 
5 
4 
4 
2 
1 












1923 











1924. 











1925 











1926 











1927 


35,000 tons 









1928-. 











1929 


35,000 tons ... 









1930-. 




35,000 tons 


Jean Bart (17), Courbet (17) 




1931 


35,000 tons 




(6) 


1932 


35,000 tons 

35,000 tons .. 


35,000 tons 


France (18) 


(5) 


1933 




(5) 


1934 




35,000 tons 

35,000 tons 

35,000 tons 


Paris (20), Bretagne (20) __ 


(o) 


1935. 




Provence (20) 


(5) 


1936 




Lorraine (20) . . _ 


(o) 


1937 






(5) 


1938. 








(5) 


1939 








(5) 


1940 








(5) 


1941 








(6) 


1942 








(5) 













* Within tonnage limitations; number not fixed. 

Note. — France expressly reserves the right of employing the capital ship tonnage allotment as she may 
consider advisable, subject solely to the limitations that the displacement of individual ships should not 
-surpass 35,000 tons, and that the total capital ship tonnage should keep within the limits imposed by the 
■present treaty. 



14 



FIVE POWER, LIMITATION OF NAVAL ARMAMENT 



SECTION II. REPLACEMENT AND SCRAPPING OF CAPITAL SHIPS — Continued 

ITALY 





Ships laid 
down 


Ships com- 
pleted 


Ships scrapped (age in parentheses) 


Ships retained — 
Summary 


Year 


Pre- Post- 
Jutland 


1922 








6 
6 
6 
6 
6 
6 
6 
6 
6 
5 
5 
4 
4 
3 
1 



o 


1923-. 








o 


1924 








o 


1925 








o 


1926-. 








o 


1927 


35,000 tons 






o 


1928-. 








o 


1929 


35,000 tons. .. 






o 


1930 











1931 


35,000 tons 

45,000 tons 


35,000 tons 


Dante Alighieri (19) 


( 5 ) 


1932 




(«) 


1933 


25,000 tons 


35,000 tons 


Leonardo da Vinci (19) ... _- 


( 5 ) 


1934_. 




(6) 


1935 




35,000 tons 

45,000 tons 

25,000 tons 


Guilio Cesare (21) __ 


( 8 ) 


1936 




Conte di Cavour (21), Duilio (21) 


(6) 


1937 




Andrea Doria (21) . 


(5) 











6 Within tonnage limitations; number not fixed. 

Note. — Italy expressly reserves the right of employing the capital ship tonnage allotment as she may 
consider advisable, subject solely to the limitations that the displacement of individual ships should not 
surpass 35,000 tons, and the total capital ship tonnage should keep within the limits imposed by the present 
treaty. 

JAPAN 



1922- 






Hizen (20), Mikasa (20), Kashima (16), 
Katori (16), Satsuma (12), Aki (11), 
Settsu (10), Ikoma (14), Ibuki (12), Ku- 
rama (11), Amagi (0), Akagi (0), Kaga 
(0), Tosa (0), Takao (0), Atago (0). Pro- 
jected program 8 ships not laid down. 6 


8 

8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
7 
5 
4 
3 
2 
1 





2 
2 


1923 . 








2 


1924- 








2 


1925 








2 


1926 








2 


1927. 








2 


1928- 








2 


1929 








2 


1930 


I ....:... 




2 


1931 


A 




2 


1932 


B 






2 


1933 


C 






2 


1934.- 


D 


A 


Kongo (21) . - 


3 


1935 


E ..- 


B 


Hiyei (21), Haruna (20) 


4 


1936 


F 


C 


Kirishima (21) 


5 


1937. 


G 


D 


Fuso (22) .- - 


6 


1938 


H .. 


E 


Yamashiro (21) _ - 


7 


1939 


I ._ 


F 


Ise (22) 


8 


1940 




G 


Hiuga (22) 


9 


1941.. 




H 


Nagato (21) 


9 


1942 




I 


Mutsu (21) .- 


9 













6 Japan may retain the Shikishima and Asahi for noncombatant purposes, after complying with 
the provisions of Part 2, III, (b). 

Note. — A, B, C,D, etc., represent individual capital ships of 35,000 tons standard displacement, laid 
down and completed in the years specified. 



NOTE APPLICABLE TO ALL THE TABLES IN SECTION IE 

The order above prescribed in which ships are to be scrapped is 
in accordance with their age. It is understood that when replace- 
ment begins according to the above tables the order of scrapping 
in the case of the ships of each of the Contracting Powers may be 



DEFINITIONS 15' 

varied at its option ; provided, however, that such Power shall scrap 
in each year the number of ships above stated. 

Part 4. Definitions 

For the purposes of the present Treaty, the following expressions- 
are to be understood in the sense defined in this Part. 

Capital Ship 

A capital ship, in the case of ships hereafter built, is defined as 
a vessel of war, not an aircraft carrier, whose displacement exceeds 
10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard displacement, or which, 
carries a gun with a calibre exceeding 8 inches (203 millimetres). 

Aircraft Carrier 

An aircraft carrier is defined as a vessel of war with a displace- 
ment in excess of 10,000 tons (10,160 metric tons) standard dis- 
placement designed for the specific and exclusive purpose of carry- 
ing aircraft. It must be so constructed that aircraft can be launched 
therefrom and landed thereon, and not designed and constructed 
for carrying a more powerful armament than that allowed to it 
under Article IX or Article X as the case may be. 

Standard Displacement 

The standard displacement of a ship is the displacement of the 
ship complete, fully manned, engined, and equipped ready for sea, 
including all armament and ammunition, equipment, outfit, provi- 
sions and fresh water for crew, miscellaneous stores and implements 
of every description that are intended to be carried in war, but with- 
out fuel or reserve feed water on board. 

The word " ton " in the present Treaty, except in the expression 
" metric tons," shall be understood to mean the ton of 2240 pounds 
(1016 kilos). 

Vessels now completed shall retain their present ratings of dis- 
placement tonnage in accordance with their national system of 
measurement. However, a Power expressing displacement in metric 
tons shall be considered for the application of the present Treaty as 
owning only the equivalent displacement in tons of 2240 pounds. 

A vessel completed hereafter shall be rated at its displacement- 
tonnage when in the standard condition defined herein. 

CHAPTER III. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 
Article XXI 

If during the term of the present Treaty the requirements of the 
national security of any Contracting Power in respect of naval de- 



16 FIVE POWER, LIMITATION OF NAVAL ARMAMENT 

fence are, in the opinion of that Power, materially affected by any 
change of circumstances, the Contracting Powers will, at the request 
of such Power, meet in conference with a view to the reconsideration 
of the provisions of the Treaty and its amendment by mutual 
agreement. 

In view of possible technical and scientific developments, the 
United States, after consultation with the other Contracting Powers, 
shall arrange for a conference of all the Contracting Powers which 
shall convene as soon as possible after the expiration of eight years 
from the coming into force of the present Treaty to consider what 
changes, if any, in the Treaty may be necessary to meet such develop- 
ments. 

Article XXII 

Whenever any Contracting Power shall become engaged in a 
war which in its opinion affects the naval defence of its national 
security, such Power may after notice to the other Contracting 
Powers suspend for the period of hostilities its obligations under the 
present Treaty other than those under Articles XIII and XVII, 
provided that such Power shall notify the other Contracting Powers 
that the emergency is of such a character as to require such sus- 
pension. 

The remaining Contracting Powers shall in such case consult to- 
gether with a view to agreement as to what temporary modifications 
if any should be made in the Treaty as between themselves. Should 
such consultation not produce agreement, duly made in accordance 
with the constitutional methods of the respective Powers, any one of 
said Contracting Powers may, by giving notice to the other Con- 
tracting Powers, suspend for the period of hostilities its obliga- 
tions under the present Treaty, other than those under Articles 
XIII and XVII. 

On the cessation of hostilities the Contracting Powers will meet 
in conference to consider what modifications, if any, should be made 
in the provisions of the present Treaty. 

Article XXIII 

The present Treaty shall remain in force until December 31st, 
1936, and in case none of the Contracting Powers shall have given 
notice two years before that date of its intention to terminate the 
Treaty, it shall continue in force until the expiration of two years 
from the date on which notice of termination shall be given by one 
of the Contracting Powers, whereupon the Treaty shall terminate as 
regards all the Contracting Powers. Such notice shall be communi- 
cated in writing to the Government of the United States, which shall 



RATIFICATION 



17 



immediately transmit a certified copy of the notification to the other 
Powers and inform them of the date on which it was received. The 
notice shall be deemed to have been given and shall take effect on 
that date. In the event of notice of termination being given by the 
Government of the United States, such notice shall be given to the 
diplomatic representatives at Washington of the other Contracting 
Powers, and the notice shall be deemed to have been given and shall 
take effect on the date of the communication made to the said diplo- 
matic representatives. 

Within one year of the date on which a notice of termination by 
any Power has taken effect, all the Contracting Powers shall meet 
in conference. 

Article XXIV 

The present Treaty shall be ratified by the Contracting Powers in 
accordance with their respective constitutional methods and shall 
take effect on the date of the deposit of all the ratifications, which 
shall take place at Washington as soon as possible. The Government 
of the United States will transmit to the other Contracting Powers a 
certified copy of the proces-verbal of the deposit of ratifications. 

The present Treaty, of which the French and English texts are 
both authentic, shall remain deposited in the archives of the Govern- 
ment of the United States, and duly certified copies thereof shall be 
transmitted by that Government to the other Contracting Powers. 

In faith whereof the above-named Plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Treaty. 

Done at the City of Washington the sixth day of February, One 
Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-Two. 



[l. s." 


1 Charles Evans Hughes 


[L. 


8.] 


Arthur James Balfour 


[l. s." 


Henry Cabot Lodge 


[L. 


m 


V S Srinivasa Sastri 


[l. s.~ 


Oscar W Underwood 


[L. 


s.] 


A Sarraut 


[l. s.~ 


Elihtj Root 


[L. 


a.] 


JUSSERAND 


[l. s." 


] Arthur James Balfour 


|"l. 


8.] 


Carlo Schanzer 


[l. s.~ 


Lee of Fareham. 


[». 


8.] 


Y. RoLANDI RlCCI 


[l. s." 


| A. C. Geddes 


m 


m 


Luigi Albertini 


[l. s." 


| R. L. Borden. 


ti 


8.] 


T. Kato 


[l. s." 


| G. F. Pearce 


[L. 


8.] 


K. Shidehara 


[l. s." 


| John W Salmond 


[L. 


8.] 


M. Hanihara 



And Whereas the said Treaty has been duly ratified on all parts 
and the ratifications of the said Governments were deposited with 
the Government of the United States of America on August 17, 
1923; 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Calvin Coolidge, President of 
the United States of America, have caused the said Treaty to be 



18 FIVE POWER, LIMITATION OF NAVAL ARMAMENT 

made public, to the end that the same and every article and clause 
thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United 
States and the citizens thereof. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
the seal of the United States of America to be affixed. 

Done in the City of Washington this twenty-first day of August 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty- 
three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the 
"one hundred and forty-eighth. 

[seal.] Calvin Coolidge 

By the President: 

Charles E. Hughes 

Secretary of State. 

PROCES-VERBAL 

OF DEPOSIT OF RATIFICATIONS OF THE TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY AND 
JAPAN, TO LIMIT THEIR RESPECTIVE NAVAL ARMAMENT, CONCLUDED 
AT WASHINGTON, FEBRUARY 6, 192 2 

In conformity with Article XXIY of the Treaty between the 
United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and 
Japan to limit their respective naval armament, concluded at Wash- 
ington on February 6, 1922, the undersigned representatives of the 
United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and 
Japan, this day met at the Department of State at Washington to 
proceed with the deposit with the Government of the United States 
of America of the instruments of ratification of the said Treaty by 
the governments they represent. 

The representative of the Government of the French Republic 
made the following declaration: 

Le Gouvernement frangais estime et a tou jours estime que les rapports des 
tonnages globaux en batiments de ligne et en porte-aeronefs, attribues a 
chacune des Puissances Contractantes, n'exprinient pas 1'importance re- 
spective des interets maritimes de ces Puissances et ne peuvent etre 6tendus 
aux categories de navires autres que celles pour lesquelles ils ont et£ expres- 
sement stipules. 3 

The instruments of ratification produced having been found upon 
examination to be in due form, are entrusted to the Government of 
the United States of America to be deposited in the archives of the 
Department of State. 

3 The French Government considers and always has considered that the ratios of total 
tonnage in capital ships and aircraft carriers allowed to the several Contracting Powers 
do not represent the respective importance of the maritime interests of those Powers and 
can not be extended to the categories of vessels other than those for which they \ver r 
expressly stipulated. 



RATIFICATION 19 

In witness whereof, the present proces- verbal, of which a certified 
copy will be sent by the Government of the United States of 
America to each one of the Powers signatory to the said treaty, is 
signed. 

Done at Washington, August IT, 1923, at 12 o'clock. 
For the United States of America : 

Charles Evans Hughes [seal] 
For the British Empire: 

H. G. Chilton [seal] 

For France: 

Andre de Laboulaye [seal] 

For Italy: 

Augusto Eosso [seal] 

For Japan: 

M. Hanihara [seal] 



r 



CENTRAL AMERICAN CONVENTION FOR THE LIMITATION OF 

ARMAMENTS 4 

The Governments of the Republics of Guatemala, El Salvador 
Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica having signed on this date 
a general treaty of peace and amity, and it being their desire and 
interest that in the future their military policy should be guided only 
by the exigencies of internal order, have agreed to conclude the 
present convention, and to that end have named as delegates: 

Guatemala: Their Excellencies Senor Don Francisco Sanchez 
Latour and Senor Licenciado Don Marcial Prem. 

El Salvador: Their Excellencies Senor Doctor Don Francisco 
Martinez Suarez and Senor Doctor Don J. Gustavo Guerrero. 

Honduras: Their Excellencies Senor Doctor Don Alberto Ucles, 
Senor Doctor Don Salvador Cordova and Senor Don Raul Toledo 
Lopez. 

Nicaragua: Their Excellencies Senor General Don Emiliano 
Chamorro, Sehor Don Adolfo Cardenas and Senor Doctor Don 
Maximo H. Zepeda. 

Costa Rica: Their Excellencies Senor Licenciado Don Alfredo 
Gonzales Flores and Senor Licenciado J. Rafael Oreamuno. 

By virtue of the invitation sent to the Government of the United 
States of America by the Governments of the five Central American 
Republics, there were present at the deliberations of the conference, 
as delegates from the Government of the United States of America. 
The Honorable Charles E. Hughes, Secretary of State of the United 
States of America and the Honorable Sumner Welles, Envoy Extra- 
ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary. 

After having communicated to one another their respective full 
powers, which were found to be in due form, the delegates of the five 
Central American Powers assembled in the Conference on Central 
American Affairs at Washington, have agreed to carry out the said, 
proposal in the following manner : 

Article I 

The contracting parties having taken into consideration their 
relative population, area, extent of frontiers and various other fac- 
tors of military importance, agree that for a period of five years 
from the date of the coming into force of the present convention, 
they shall not maintain a standing army and national guard in excess 

4 Ratified by Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Riea,. 192.4 ;. Honduras, 1925.. 
20 



LIMITATION PROVISIONS 21 

of the number of men hereinafter provided, except in case of civil 
Avar, or impending invasion by another state. 

Guatemala 1 5, 200 

El Salvador 4,200 

Honduras 2, 500 

Nicaragua 2, 500 

Costa Rica 2,000 

General officers and officers of a lower rank of the standing army, 
who are necessary in accordance with the military regulations of 
each country, are not included in the provisions of this article, nor 
are those of the national guard. The police force is also not included. 

Article II 

As the first duty of armed forces of the Central American Gov- 
ernments is to preserve public order, each of the contracting parties 
obligates itself to establish a national guard to cooperate with the 
existing armies in the preservation of order in the various districts 
of the country and on the frontiers, and shall immediately consider 
the best means for establishing it. With this end in view the Gov- 
ernments of the Central American States shall give consideration 
to the employment of suitable instructors, in order to take ad- 
vantage, in this manner, of experience acquired in other countries 
in organizing such corps. 

In no case shall the total combined force of the army and of the 
national guard exceed the maximum limit fixed in the preceding 
article, except in the cases therein provided. 

Article III 

The contracting parties undertake not to export or permit the 
exportation of arms or munitions or any other kind of military 
stores from one Central American country to another. 

Article IV 

None of the contracting parties shall have the right to possess 
more than ten war aircraft. Neither may any of them acquire 
war vessels; but armed coast guard boats shall not be considered as 
war vessels. 

The following cases shall be considered as exceptions to this 
article: civil war or threatened attack by a foreign state; in such 
cases the right of defense shall have no other limitations than those 
established by existing treaties. 

Article V 

The contracting parties consider that the use in warfare of 
asphyxiating gases, poisons, or similar substances as well as analo- 
gous liquids, materials or devices, is contrary to humanitarian 



22 CENTEAL AMERICAN LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT 

principles and to international law, and obligate themselves by 
the present convention not to use said substances in time of war. 

Article VI 

Six months after the coming into force of the present convention 
each of the contracting governments shall submit to the other Cen- 
tral American Governments a complete report on the measures 
adopted by said government for the execution of this convention. 
Similar reports shall be submitted semiannually, during the afore- 
said period of the five years. The reports shall include the units 
of the army, if any, and of the national guard; and any other in- 
formation which the parties shall sanction. 

Article VII 

The present convention shall take effect, with respect to the 
parties that have ratified it, from the date of its ratification by 
at least four of the signatory states. 

Article VIII 

The present convention shall remain in force until the first of" 
January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine, notwith- 
standing any prior denunciation, or any other cause. After the 
first of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine, it 
shall continue in force until one year after the date on which one 
of the parties bound thereby notifies the others of its intention to 
denounce it. The denunciation of this convention by any of said 
parties shall leave it in force for those parties which have ratified 
it and have not denounced it, provided that these be not less than 
four in number. Any of the republics of Central America which 
should fail to ratify this convention, shall have the right to adhere 
to it while it is in force. 

Article IX 

The exchange of ratifications of the present convention shall be 
made through communications addressed by the governments to the 
Government of Costa Rica in order that the latter may inform the 
other contracting states. If the Government of Costa Rica should 
ratify the convention, notice of said ratification shall also be com- 
municated to the others. 

Article X 

The original copy of the present convention, signed by all of 
the delegates plenipotentiary, shall be deposited in the archives of 
the Pan-American Union at Washington. A copy duly certified 
shall be sent by the Secretary-General of the conference to each 
one of the governments of the contracting parties. 



I>. B.] 


F. Sanchez Latouk 


[l. s.] 


r L . s.3 


Maecial Prem 


[l. s.] 


tfc s.] 


F. Martinez Suarez 


[l. s.] 


[l. aj 


J. Gustavo Guerrero 


[l. s.] 


[fc 8.] 


Alberto Ucles 


[l. s.] 


[L. B.] 


Salvador Cordova 


[l. Si] 



possessions in pacific ocean 23. 

Signed at the city of Washington, on the seventh day of Febru- 
ary, nineteen hundred and twenty-three. 

Raul Toledo Lopez 
Emiliano Chamorro 
Adolfo Cardenas 
Maximo H. Zepeda 
Alfredo Gonzalez 
J. Rafael Oreamuno 

POSSESSIONS IIS PACIFIC OCEAN 

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES, THE BRITISH EMPIRE^ 
FRANCE, AND JAPAN, 6 RELATING TO THEIR INSULAR POSSES^ 
SIONS AND INSULAR DOMINIONS IN THE REGION OF THE PA- 
CIFIC OCEAN 

By the President of the United States of America 

A PROCLAMATION 

Whereas a Treaty between the United States of America, the. 
British Empire, France and Japan, relating to their insular posses- 
sions and insular dominions in the region of the Pacific Ocean, was 
concluded and signed by their respective plenipotentiaries at Wash- 
ington on December 13, 1921, the original of which Treaty, in the 
English and French languages, is word for word as follows : 

The United States of America, the British Empire, France and 
Japan, 

With a view to the preservation of the general peace and the 
maintenance of their rights in relation to their insular possessions 
and insular dominions in the region of the Pacific Ocean, 

Have determined to conclude a Treaty to this effect and have ap- 
pointed as their Plenipotentiaries: 

The President of the United States of America : 
Charles Evans Hughes, 
Henry Cabot Lodge, 
Oscar W. Underwood and 
Elihu Root, citizens of the United States; 

6 Treaty Series, No. 669. 
[Signed at Washington, December 13, 1921; ratification advised by the Senate, with a 
reservation and understanding, March 24, 1922 ; ratified by the President, June 9* 
1923 ; ratifications deposited with the Government of the United States, August 1-7, 
1923 ; proclaimed, August 21, 1923] 



24 FOUR-POWER TREATY 

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Em- 
peror of India: 

The Right Honourable Arthur James Balfour, O. M., M. P., 

Lord President of His Privy Council; 
The Right Honourable Baron Lee of Fareham, G. B. E., 

K. C. B., First Lord of His Admiralty; 
The Right Honourable Sir Auckland Campbell Geddes, 
K. C. B., His Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipo- 
tentiary to the United States of America; 
And 

for the Dominion of Canada: 

The Right Honourable Robert Laird Borden, G. C. M. G., 
K. C; 
for the Commonwealth of Australia: 

The Honourable George Foster Pearce, Minister of Defence; 
for the Dominion of New Zealand : 

Sir John William Salmond, K. C, Judge of the Supreme 
Court of New Zealand; 
for the Union of South Africa : 

The Right Honourable Arthur James Balfour, O. M., M. P.; 
for India : 

The Right Honourable Yalingman Sankaranarayana Srinivasa 
Sastri, Member of the Indian Council of State ; 
The President of the French Republic: 

Mr. Rene Viviani, Deputy, Former President of the Council 

of Ministers; 
Mr. Albert Sarraut, Deputy, Minister of the Colonies; 
Mr. Jules J. Jusserand, Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary to the United States of America, Grand 
Cross of the National Order of the Legion of Honour ; 
His Majesty the Emperor of Japan : 

Baron Tomosaburo Kato, Minister for the Navy, Junii, a 
member of the First Class of the Imperial Order of the 
Grand Cordon of the Rising Sun with the Paulownia 
Flower ; 
Baron Kijuro Shidehara, His Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary at Washington, Joshii, a member , of the 

First Class of the Imperial Order of the Rising Sun ; 
Prince lyesato Tokugawa, Junii, a member of the First Class 

of the Imperial Order of the Rising Sun; 

Mr. Masanao Hanihara, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, 

Jushii, a member of the Second Class of the Imperial Order 
of the Rising Sun ; 
Who, having communicated their Full Powers, found in good and 
due form, have agreed as follows : 



PROVISIONS 25 

I 

The High Contracting Parties agree as between themselves to re- 
spect their rights in relation to their insular possessions and insular 
dominions in the region of the Pacific Ocean. 

If there should develop between any of the High Contracting 
Parties a controversy arising out of any Pacific question and involv- 
ing their said rights which is not satisfactorily settled by diplo- 
macy and is likely to affect the harmonious accord now happily sub- 
sisting between them, they shall invite the other High Contracting 
Parties to a joint conference to which the whole subject will be re- 
ferred for consideration and adjustment. 

II 

If the said rights are threatened by the aggressive action of any 
other Power, the High Contracting Parties shall communicate with 
one another fully and frankly in order to arrive at an understanding 
as to the most efficient measures to be taken, jointly or separately, to 
meet the exigencies of the particular situation. 

Ill 

This Treaty shall remain in force for ten years from the time it 
shall take effect, and after the expiration of said period it shall con- 
tinue to be in force subject to the right of any of the High Contract- 
ing Parties to terminate it upon twelve months' notice. 

IV 

This Treaty shall be ratified as soon as possible in accordance 
with the constitutional methods of the High Contracting Parties and 
shall take effect on the deposit of ratifications, which shall take place 
at Washington, and thereupon the agreement between Great Britain 
and Japan, which was concluded at London on July 13, 1911, shall 
terminate. The Government of the United States will transmit to 
all the Signatory Powers a certified copy of the proces-verhal of the 
deposit of ratifications. 

The present Treaty, in French and in English, shall remain de- 
posited in the Archives of the Government of the United States, and 
duly certified copies thereof will be transmitted by that Government 
to each of the Signatory Powers. 

In faith' whereof the above named Plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Treaty. 
57920—26 3 



26 



FOUR POWER TREATY 



Done at the City of Washington, the 
One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twen 



[l. s. 
[l. s. 
[l. s. 
[l. s. 
[l. s. 
[l. s. 
[l. s. 
[l. s. 
[l. s. 
[l. s. 



Charles Evans Hughes [l. s. 

Henry Cabot Lodge [l. s. 

Oscar W. Underwood [l. s. 

Elihu Root [l. s. 

Arthur James Balfour [l. s. 

Lee of Fareham [l. s. 

A. C. Geddes [l. s. 

R. L. Borden [l. s. 

G. F. Pearce [l. s. 
John W. Salmond 



thirteenth day of December, 
ty-One. 

] Arthur James Balfour 
] V. S. Srinivasa Sastri 
| Rene Viviani 
] A. Sarraut 

] JUSSERAND 

] T. Kato 

] K. Shidehara 

I TOKUGAWA IYESATO 

I M. Hanihara 



And Whereas the said Treaty has been duly ratified on all parts 
and the ratifications of the said Governments were deposited with 
the Government of the United States of America on August 17, 
1923; 

And Whereas the said Treaty was ratified by the United States 
subject to the reservation and understanding that "The United 
States understands that under the statement in the preamble and 
under the terms of this Treaty there is no commitment to armed 
force, no alliance, no obligation to join in any defense " ; 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Calvin Coolidge, President of 
the United States of America, have caused the said Treaty to be 
made public, to the end that the same and every article and clause 
thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United 
States and the citizens thereof, subject to the aforesaid under- 
standing and reservation. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
the seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done in the City of Washington this twenty-first day of August 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty- 
three, and of the Independence of the United States of America 
the one hundred and forty-eighth. 

[seal.] Calvin Coolidge. 

By the President: 

Charles E. Hughes 

Secretary of State. 

[DECLARATION SIGNED SEPARATELY IN ENGLISH AND IN FRENCH] 

In signing the Treaty this day between The United States of 
America, The British Empire, France and Japan, it is declared to 
be the understanding and intent of the Signatory Powers : 

1. That the Treaty shall apply to the Mandated Islands in the 
Pacific Ocean; provided, however, that the making of the Treaty 



RATIFICATIONS 27 

shall not be deemed to be an assent on the part of The United States 
of America to the mandates and shall not preclude agreements 
between The United States of America and the Mandatory Powers 
respectively in relation to the mandated islands. 

2. That the controversies to which the second paragraph of Article 
I refers shall not be taken to embrace questions which according to 
principles of international law lie exclusively within the domestic 
jurisdiction of the respective Powers. 

Washington, D. C., December 13, 1921. 

Charles Evans Hughes Arthur James Balfour 

Henry Cabot Lodge V. S. Srinivasa Sastri 

Oscar W. Underwood Rene Viviani 

Elihu Root A. Sarraut 

Arthur James Balfour Jusserand 

Lee of Fareham T. Kato 

A. C. Geddes K. Shidehara 

R. L. Borden Tokugawa Iyesato 

G. F. Pearce M. Hanihara 

John W. Salmond 



PROCES-VERBAL 

OF deposit of ratifications of the treaty between the united 

STATES OF AMERICA, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE AND JAPAN, RELAT- 
ING TO THEIR INSULAR POSSESSIONS AND INSULAR DOMINIONS IN THE 



REGION OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN, CONCLUDED AT WASHINGTON, DECEM- 

; 5 



BER 13, 1921 



In conformity with Article IV of the Treaty between the United 
States of America, the British Empire, France and Japan relating 
to their insular possessions and insular dominions in the region of 
the Pacific Ocean, concluded at Washington on December 13, 1921, 
the undersigned representatives of the United States of America, the 
British Empire, France and Japan this day met at the Department 
of State at Washington to proceed with the deposit with the Gov- 
ernment of the United States of America of the instruments of 
ratification of the said Treaty by the governments they represent. 

The representative of the United States of America declared that 
the instrument of ratification of the United States is deposited with 
the reservation and understanding, recited in the ratification, that — 

" The United States understands that under the statement in the preamble 
or under the terms of this treaty there is no commitment to armed force, no 
alliance, no obligation to join in any defense." 



28 SUPPLEMENTAEY AGREEMENT, FOUR-POWER TREATY 

The instruments of ratification produced having been found upon 
examination to be in due form, are entrusted to the Government of 
the United States of America to be deposited in the archives of the 
Department of State. 

In witness whereof, the present proces- verbal, of which a certified 
copy will be sent by the Government of the United States of America 
to each one of the Powers signatory to the said treaty, is signed : 
Done at Washington, August 17, 1923, at 12 o'clock. 
For the United States : 

Charles Evans Hughes [seal] 
For the British Empire : 

H. G. Chilton [seal] 

For France : 

Andre de Laboulaye [seal] 

For Japan: 

M. Hanihara [seal] 

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES, THE BRITISH EM- 
PIRE, FRANCE, AND JAPAN 6 — SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE TREATY 
OF DECEMBER 13, 1921, BETWEEN THE SAME FOUR POWERS 
RELATING TO THEIR INSULAR POSSESSIONS AND INSULAR DO- 
MINIONS IN THE REGION OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN 

[Signed at Washington, February 6, 1922; ratification advised by tbe Senate, with a 
reservation and understanding, March 27, 1922 ; ratified by the President, June 9, 
1923 ; ratifications deposited with the Government of the United States, August 17, 
1928; proclaimed, August 21, 1923] 

By the President of the United States of America 
A PROCLAMATION 

Whereas an Agreement between the United States of America, 
the British Empire, France and Japan, supplementary to the Treaty 
between the same four Powers relating to their insular possessions 
and insular dominions in the region of the Pacific Ocean, signed at 
Washington on December 13, 1921, was concluded and signed by 
their respective Plenipotentiaries at Washington on February 6, 
1922, the original of which Agreement, in the English and French 
languages, is word for word as follows: 

The United States of America, the British Empire, France and 
Japan have, through their respective Plenipotentiaries, agreed upon 
the following stipulations supplementary to the Quadruple Treaty 
signed at Washington on December 13, 1921 : 

The term " insular possessions and insular dominions " used in 
the aforesaid Treaty shall, in its application to Japan, include only 
Karafuto (or the Southern portion of the island of Sakhalin), For- 

• Treaty Series, No. 670. 



RATIFICATION 



29 



mosa and the Pescadores, and the islands under the mandate of 
Japan. 

The present agreement shall have the same force and effect as the 
said Treaty to which it is supplementary. 

The provisions of Article IV of the aforesaid Treaty of December 
13, 192% relating to ratification shall be applicable to the present 
Agreement, which in French and English shall remain deposited in 
the Archives of the Government of the United States, and duly 
certified copies thereof shall be transmitted by that Government to 
each of the other Contracting Powers. 

In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the 
present Agreement. 

Done at the City of Washington, the sixth day of February, One 
Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-two. 



[l. s.~ 


Charles Evans Hughes 


[l. s." 


John W. Salmond 


[l. s.~ 


Henry Cabot Lodge 


[l. s." 


Arthur James Balfour 


[l. a," 


Oscar W. Underwood 


[l. s/ 


| V S Srinivasa Sastri 


[l. 8." 


Elihu Root 


[l. s.~ 


| A Sarraut 


[l. s. 


[ Arthur James Balfour 


[l. s." 


JUSSERAND 


[l. s. 


] Lee of Fareham 


[l. s." 


| T. Kato 


[l. s. 


] A. C. Geddes 


[l. s/ 


K. Shidehara 


[l. s." 


] R. L. Borden 


[l. s/ 


M. Hanihara 


[l. s.~ 


| G. F. Pearce 







And Whereas the said Agreement has been ratified on all parts 
and the ratifications of the said Governments were deposited with 
the Government of the United States of America on August 17, 1923 ; 

And Whereas the said Agreement was ratified by the United States 
subject to the following reservation and understanding, which re- 
peats the declaration of intent and understanding made by the rep- 
resentatives of the Powers signatories of the said Treaty relating to 
their insular possessions and insular dominions in the region of the 
Pacific Ocean: 

" 1. That the Four Power Treaty relating to Pacific Possessions 
shall apply to the Mandated Islands in the Pacific Ocean ; provided, 
however, that the making of the Treaty shall not be deemed to be an 
assent on the part of the United States of America to the mandates 
and shall not preclude agreements between the United States of 
America and the Mandatory Powers respectively in relation to the 
mandated islands. 

"2. That the controversies to which the second paragraph of 
Article 1 of the Four Power Treaty relating to Pacific Possessions 
refers shall not be taken to embrace questions which according to 
principles of international law lie exclusively within the domestic 
jurisdiction of the respective Powers." 



30 SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT, FOUR-POWER TREATY 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Calvin Coolidge, President of 
the United States of America, have caused the said Agreement to be 
made public, to the end that the same and every article and clause 
thereof may be observed and fulfilled in good faith by the United 
States and the citizens thereof, subject to the aforesaid reservation 
and understanding. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the 
seal of the United States of America to be affixed. 

Done in the City of Washington this twenty-first day of August 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty three, 
and of the Independence of the United States of America the one 
hundred and forty-eighth. 

[seal.] Calvin Coolidge 

By the President : 

Charles E. Hughes 

Secretary of State. 

PKOCES-VERBAL 

OF DEPOSIT OF RATIFICATIONS OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE AND JAPAN, CON- 
CLUDED AT WASHINGTON, FEBRUARY 6, 19 2 2, SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE 
TREATY CONCLUDED BETWEEN THEM ON DECEMBER 13, 1921, RELATING 
TO THEIR INSULAR POSSESSIONS AND INSULAR DOMINIONS IN THE 
REGION OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN 

In conformity with the Agreement between the United States of 
America, the British Empire, France and Japan, concluded at 
Washington on February 6, 1922, supplementary to the Treaty con- 
cluded between the same Four Powers at Washington on December 
13, 1921, relating to their insular possessions and insular dominions 
in the region of the Pacific Ocean, the undersigned representatives of 
the United States of America, the British Empire, France and 
Japan this day met at the Department of State at Washington to 
proceed with the deposit with the Government of the United States 
of America of the instruments of ratification of the said Agreement 
by the governments they respectively represent. 

The representative of the United States of America declared that 
the instrument of ratification of the United States is deposited with 
the reservation and understanding recited in the ratification, and 
which repeats the declaration of intent and understanding signed on 
December 13, 1921, by the Plenipotentiaries of the Four Powers 
Signatories of the Treaty of December 13, 1921, as follows : 

" 1. That the Four Power Treaty relating to Pacific Possessions 
shall apply to the Mandated Islands in the Pacific Ocean : provided, 



NICARAGUAN CANAL 31 

however, that the making of the Treaty shall not be deemed to be an 
assent on the part of the United States of America to the mandates 
and shall not preclude agreements between the United States of 
America and the Mandatory Powers respectively in relation to the 
mandated islands. 

" 2. That the controversies to which the second paragraph of 
Article I of the Four Power Treaty relating to Pacific Possessions 
refers shall not be taken to embrace questions which according to 
principles of international law lie exclusively within the domestic 
jurisdiction of the respective Powers." 

The instruments of ratification produced, having been found upon 
examination to be in due form, are entrusted to the Government of 
the United States of America to be deposited in the archives of the 
Department of State. 

In Witness Whereof, the present proces-verbal, of which a certified 
copy will be sent by the Government of the United States of America 
to each one of the Powers signatory to the said Treaty, is signed. 

Done at Washington, August 17, 1923, at 12 o'clock. 
For the United States of America : 

Charles Evans Hughes [seal] 



For the British Empire : 
For France: 
For Japan: 



H. G. Chilton [seal] 

Andre de Laboulaye [seal] 

M. Hanihara [seal] 

nicaraguan canal route 

CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND NICARAGUA T — 

NICARAGUAN CANAL ROUTE 

[Signed at Washington, August 5, 1914; ratification advised by the Senate, with amend- 
ments, February 18, 1916; ratified by the President, June 19, 1916; ratified by Nica- 
ragua, April 13, 1916; ratifications exchanged at Washington, June 22, 1916; pro- 
claimed, June 24, 1916] 

By the President of the United States of America 

A PROCLAMATION 

Whereas a Convention between the United States of America and 
the Republic of Nicaragua granting to the United States the exclu- 
sive proprietary rights for the construction and operation of an 
interoceanic canal by a Nicaraguan route, the lease of certain islands, 
and the right to establish a naval base on the Gulf of Fonseca, was 

'Treaty Series, No. 624. 



32 NICARAGUAN CANAL CONVENTION 

concluded and signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries at Wash- 
ington, on the fifth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and 
fourteen, the original of which Convention, being in the English 
and Spanish languages is, as amended by the Senate of the United 
States, word for word as follows : 

The Government of the United States of America and the Gov- 
ernment of Nicaragua being animated by the desire to strengthen 
their ancient and cordial friendship by the most sincere coopera- 
tion for all purposes of their mutual advantage and interest and to 
provide for the possible future construction of an interoceanic ship 
canal by way of the San Juan River and the great Lake of Nica- 
ragua, or by any route over Nicaraguan territory, whenever the 
construction of such canal shall be deemed by the Government of 
the United States conducive to the interests of both countries, and 
the Government of Nicaragua wishing to facilitate in every way 
possible the successful maintenance and operation of the Panama 
Canal, the two Governments have resolved to conclude a Convention 
to these ends, and have accordingly appointed as their plenipotenti- 
aries : 

The President of the United States, the Honorable William Jen- 
nings Bryan, Secretary of State; and 

The President of Nicaragua, Sefior General Don Emiliano 
Chamorro, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of 
Nicaragua to the United States; 

Who, having exhibited to each other their respective full powers, 
found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon and concluded 
the following articles : 

Article I 

The Government of Nicaragua grants in perpetuity to the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, forever free from all taxation or other 
public charge, the exclusive proprietary rights necessary and con- 
venient for the construction, operation and maintenance of an inter- 
oceanic canal by way of the San Juan River and the great Lake of 
Nicaragua or by way of any route over Nicaraguan territory, the de- 
tails of the terms upon which such canal shall be constructed, oper- 
ated and maintained to be®agreed to by the two governments when- 
ever the Government of the United States shall notify the Govern- 
ment of Nicaragua of its desire or intention to construct such canal. 

Article II 

To enable the Government of the United States to protect the 
Panama Canal and the proprietary rights granted to the Govern- 
ment of the United States by the foregoing article, and also to enable 
the Government of the United States to take any measure necessary 



PROVISIONS 33 

to the ends contemplated herein, the Government of Nicaragua 
hereby leases for a term of ninety-nine years to the Government of 
the United States the islands in the Caribbean Sea known as Great 
Corn Island and Little Corn Island; and the Government of Nica- 
ragua further grants to the Government of the United States for a 
like period of ninety-nine years the right to establish, operate and 
maintain a naval base at such place on the territory of Nicaragua 
bordering upon the Gulf of Fonseca as the Government of the 
United States may select. The Government of the United States 
shall have the option of renewing for a further term of ninety -nine 
years the above leases and grants upon the expiration of their re- 
spective terms, it being expressly agreed that the territory hereby 
leased and the naval base which may be maintained under the grant 
aforesaid shall be subject exclusively to the laws and sovereign au- 
thority of the United States during the terms of such lease and 
grant and of any renewal or renewals thereof. 

Article III 

In consideration of the foregoing stipulations and for the purposes 
contemplated by this Convention and for the purpose of reducing the 
present indebtedness of Nicaragua, the Government of the United 
States shall, upon the date of the exchange of ratification of this 
Convention, pay for the benefit of the Republic of Nicaragua the 
sum of three million dollars United States gold coin, of the present 
weight and fineness, to be deposited to the order of the Government 
of Nicaragua in such bank or banks or with such banking corpora- 
tion as the Government of the United States may determine, to be 
applied by Nicaragua upon its indebtedness or other public purposes 
for the advancement of the welfare of Nicaragua in a manner to be 
determined by the two High Contracting Parties, all such disburse- 
ments to be made by orders drawn by the Minister of Finance of the 
Republic of Nicaragua and approved by the Secretary of State of the 
United States or by such person as he may designate. 

Article IV 

This Convention shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties 
in accordance with their respective laws, and the ratifications thereof 
shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible. 

In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present treaty and have affixed thereunto their seals. 

Done at Washington, in duplicate, in the English and Spanish 
languages, on the 5th day of August, in the year nineteen hundred 
and fourteen. 

William Jennings Bryan [seal.] 
Emiliano Chamorro" [seal.] 

57920—26 1 



34 NICARAGUAN CANAL CONVENTION 

And whereas, the advice and consent of the Senate of the United 
States to the ratification of the said Convention was given with the 
following proviso : "Provided, That, whereas, Costa Eica, Salvador 
and Honduras have protested against the ratification of the said 
Convention in the fear or belief that said Convention might in some 
respect impair existing rights of said States ; therefore, it is declared 
by the Senate that in advising and consenting to the ratification of 
the said Convention as amended such advice and consent are given 
with the understanding, to be expressed as a part of the instrument 
of ratification, that nothing in said Convention is intended to affect 
any existing right of any of the said named States ; " 

And whereas, the said understanding has been accepted by the 
Government of Nicaragua; 

And whereas, the said Convention, as amended by the Senate of 
the United States, has been duly ratified on both parts, and the rati- 
fications of the two governments were exchanged in the City of 
Washington, on the twenty-second day of June, one thousand nine 
hundred and sixteen; 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Woodrow Wilson, President 
of the United States of America, have caused the said Convention, 
as amended, and the said understanding to be made public, to the 
end that the same and every article and clause thereof may be ob- 
served and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and the 
citizens thereof. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
the seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington this twenty- fourth of June in the 
year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, and of the 
Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and 
fortieth. 

[seal.] Woodrow Wilson 

By the President : 
Kobert Lansing, 

Secretary of State. 



DANISH WEST INDIES 

CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND DENMARK 8 — 
CESSION OF THE DANISH WEST INDIES 

[Signed at New York, August '4, 1916; ratification advised by the Senate, September 7, 
1916 ; ratified by the President, January 16, 1917 ; ratified by Denmark, December 22, 
1916 ; ratifications exchanged at Washington, January 17, 1917 ; proclaimed, January 
25, 1917] 

By the President of the United States of America 

A PEOCLAMATION 

Whereas a Convention bebveen the United States of America and 
Denmark providing for the cession to the United States of all terri- 
tory asserted or claimed by Denmark in the West Indies, including 
the islands of St. Thomas, St. John and St. Croix, together with 

the adjacent islands and rocks, was concluded and signed by their 
respective plenipotentiaries at the City of New York on the fourth 

day of August, one thousand nine hundred and sixteen, the original 
of which Convention, being in the English and Danish languages, is 
word for word as follows : 

The United States of America and His Majesty the King of 
Denmark being desirous of confirming the good understanding which 
exists between them, have to that end appointed as Plenipotentiaries : 
The President of the United States: 

Mr. Kobert Lansing, Secretary of State of the United States, 
and His Majesty the King of Denmark : 

Mr. Constantin Brun, His Majesty's Envoy extraordinary 
and Minister plenipotentiary at Washington, 
who, having mutually exhibited their full powers which were found 
to be in due form, have agreed upon the following articles : 

Article 1 

His Majesty the King of Denmark by this convention cedes to the 
United States all territory, dominion and sovereignty, possessed, 
asserted or claimed by Denmark in the West Indies including the 
Islands of Saint Thomas, Saint John and Saint Croix together with 
the adjacent islands and rocks. 

8 Treaty Series No. 629. 

35 



36 DANISH WEST INDIES CONVENTION 

This cession includes the right of property in all public, govern- 
ment, or crown lands, public buildings, wharves, ports, harbors, for- 
tifications, barracks, public funds, rights, franchises, and privileges, 
and all other public property of every kind or description now 
belonging to Denmark together with all appurtenances thereto. 

In this cession shall also be included any government archives, 
records, papers or documents which relate to the cession or the 
rights and property of the inhabitants of the Islands ceded, and 
which may now be existing either in the Islands ceded or in Den- 
mark. Such archives and records shall be carefully preserved, and 
authenticated copies thereof, as may be required shall be at all 
times given to the United States Government or the Danish Gov- 
ernment, as the case may be, or to such properly authorized persons 
as may apply for them. 

Article 2 

Denmark guarantees that the cession made by the preceding 
article is free and unencumbered by any reservations, privileges, 
franchises, grants, or possessions, held by any governments, corpo- 
rations, syndicates, or individuals, except as herein mentioned. But 
it is understood that this cession does not in any respect impair 
private rights which by law belong to the peaceful possession of 
property of all kinds by private individuals of whatsoever nation- 
ality, by municipalities, public or private establishments, ecclesi- 
astical or civic bodies, or any other associations having legal capacity 
to acquire and possess property in the Islands ceded. 

The congregations belonging to the Danish National Church shall 
retain the undisturbed use of the churches which are now used by 
them, together with the parsonages appertaining thereunto and other 
appurtenances, including the funds allotted to the churches. 

Article 3 

It is especially agreed, however, that : 

(1) The arms and military stores existing in the Islands at the 
time of the cession and belonging to the Danish Government shall 
remain the property of that Government and shall, as soon as circum- 
stances will permit, be removed by it, unless they, or parts thereof, 
may have been bought by the Government of the United States; it 
being however understood that flags and colors, uniforms and such 
arms or military articles as are marked as being the property of the 
Danish Government shall not be included in such purchase. 

(2) The movables, especially silver plate and pictures which may 
be found in the government buildings in the islands ceded and be- 
longing to the Danish Government shall remain the property of that 



CLAIMS AND CONCESSIONS 37 

Government and shall, as soon as circumstances will permit, be re- 
moved by it. 

(3) The pecuniary claims now held by Denmark against the 
colonial treasuries of the islands ceded are altogether extinguished in 
consequence of this cession and the United States assumes no re- 
sponsibility whatsoever for or in connection with these claims. Ex- 
cepted is however the amount due to the' Danish Treasury in account 
current with the West-Indian colonial treasuries pursuant to the 
making up of accounts in consequence of the cession of the islands; 
should on the other hand this final accounting show a balance in 
favour of the West-Indian colonial treasuries, the Danish Treas- 
ury shall pay that amount to the colonial treasuries. 

(4) The United States will maintain the following grants, con- 
cessions and licenses, given by the Danish Government, in accordance 
with the terms on which they are given : 

a. The concession granted to " Det vestindiske Kompagni " (the 
West-Indian Company) Ltd. by the communications from the Min- 
istry of Finance of January 18th 1913 and of April 16th 1913 relative 
to a license to embank, drain, deepen and utilize certain areas in St. 
Thomas Harbor and preferential rights as to commercial, industrial 
or shipping establishments in the said Harbor. 

h. Agreement of August 10th and 14th, 1914 between the munici- 
pality of St. Thomas and St. John and " Det vestindiske Kompagni " 
Ltd. relative to the supply of the city of Charlotte Amalie with elec- 
tric lighting. 

c. Concession of March 12th 1897 to " The Floating Dock Com- 
pany of St. Thomas Ltd.", subsequently transferred to "The St. 
Thomas Engineering and Coaling Company Ltd." relative to a 
floating dock in St. Thomas Harbor, in which concession the main- 
tenance, extension, and alteration of the then existing repairing 
slip are reserved. 

d. Royal Decree Nr. 79 of November 30th 1914 relative to the sub- 
sidies from the colonial treasuries of St. Thomas and Sainte Croix 
to " The West India and Panama Telegraph Company Ltd." 

e. Concession of November 3rd, 1906, to K. B. Hey to establish 
and operate a telephone system on St. Thomas island, which con- 
cession has subsequently been transferred to the " St. Thomas 
Telef onselskab " Ltd. 

/. Concession of February 28th 1913 to the municipality of Sainte 
Croix to establish and operate a telephone system in Sainte Croix. 

g. Concession of July 16th 1915 to Ejnar Svendsen, an Engineer, 
for the construction and operation of an electric light plant in the 
city of Christiansted, Sainte Croix. 

h. Concession of June 20th 1904 for the establishment of a Danish 
West-Indian bank of issue. This bank has for a period of 30 years 



38 DANISH WEST INDIES CONVENTION. 

acquired the monopoly to issue bank-notes in the Danish West-India 
islands against the payment to the Danish Treasury of a tax amount- 
ing to ten percent of its annual profits. 

i. Guarantee according to the Danish supplementary Budget Law 
for the financial year 1908-1909 relative to the St. Thomas Harbor's 
four percent loan of 1910. 

(5) Whatever sum shall be due to the Danish Treasury by private 
individuals on the date of the exchange of ratifications are reserved 
and do not pass by this cession; and where the Danish Government 
at that date holds property taken over by the Danish Treasury for 
sums due by private individuals, such property shall not pass by this 
cession, but the Danish Government shall sell or dispose of such 
property and remove its proceeds within two years from the date of 
the exchange of ratifications of this convention; the United States 
Government being entitled to sell by public auction, to the credit 
of the Danish Government, any portion of such property remaining 
unsold at the expiration of the said term of two years. 

(6) The Colonial Treasuries shall continue to pay the yearly 
allowances now given to heretofore retired functionaries appointed 
in the islands but holding no Eoyal Commissions, unless such allow- 
ances may have until now been paid in Denmark. 

Article 4 

The Danish Government shall appoint with convenient despatch 
an agent or agents for the purpose of formally delivering to a simi- 
lar agent or agents appointed on behalf of the United States, the 
territory, dominion, property, and appurtenances which are ceded 
hereby, and for doing any other act which may be necessary in 
regard thereto. Formal delivery of the territory and property 
ceded shall be made immediately after the payment by the United 
States of the sum of money stipulated in this convention; but the 
cession with the right of immediate possession is nevertheless to be 
deemed complete on the exchange of ratifications of this convention 
without such formal delivery. Any Danish military or naval forces 
which may be in the islands ceded shall be withdrawn as soon as may 
be practicable after the formal delivery, it being however under- 
stood that if the persons constituting these forces, after having ter- 
minated their Danish service, do not wish to leave the Islands, they 
shall be allowed to remain there as civilians. 

Article 5 

In full consideration of the cession made by this convention, the 
United States agrees to pay, within ninety days from the date of the 



EIGHTS OF INHABITANTS 39 

exchange of the ratifications of this convention, in the City of Wash- 
ington to the diplomatic representative or other agent of His Majesty 
the King of Denmark duly authorized to receive the money, the sum 
of twenty-five million dollars in gold coin of the United States. 

Article 6 

Danish citizens residing in said islands may remain therein or may 
remove therefrom at will, retaining in either event all their rights 
of property, including the right to sell or dispose of such property 
or its proceeds; in case they remain in the Islands, they shall con- 
tinue until otherwise provided, to enjoy all the private, municipal 
and religious rights and liberties secured to them by the laws now in 
force. If the present laws are altered, the said inhabitants shall not 
thereby be placed in a less favorable position in respect to the above 
mentioned rights and liberties than they now enjoy. Those, who 
remain in the islands may preserve their citizenship in Denmark by 
making before a court of record, within one year from the date of 
the exchange of ratifications of this convention, a declaration of their 
decision to preserve such citizenship ; in default of which declaration 
they shall be held to have renounced it, and to have accepted citizen- 
ship in the United States ; for children under eighteen years the said 
declaration may be made by their parents or guardians. Such elec- 
tion of Danish citizenship shall however not, after the lapse of the 
said term of one year; be a bar to their renunciation of their pre- 
served Danish citizenship and their election of citizenship in the 
United States and admission to the nationality thereof on the same 
terms as may be provided according to the laws of the United States, 
for other inhabitants of the islands. 

The civil rights and the political status of the inhabitants of the 
islands shall be determined by the Congress, subject to the stipula- 
tions contained in the present convention. 

Danish citizens not residing in the islands but owning property 
therein at the time of the cession, shall retain their rights of prop- 
erty, including the right to sell or dispose of such property, being 
placed in this regard on the same basis as the Danish citizens resid- 
ing in the islands and remaining therein or removing therefrom, to 
whom the first paragraph of this article relates. 

Article 7 

Danish subjects residing in the Islands shall be subject in matters 
civil as well as criminal to the jurisdiction of the courts of the 
Islands, pursuant to the ordinary laws governing the same, and they 
shall have the right to appear before such courts, and to pursue the 
same course therein as citizens of the country to which the courts 
belong. 



40 danish west indies convention 

Article 8 

Judicial proceedings pending at the time of the' formal delivery 
in the islands ceded shall be determined according to the following 
rules : 

(1) Judgments rendered either in civil suits between private in- 
dividuals, or in criminal matters, before the date mentioned, and 
with respect to which there is no recourse or right to review under 
Danish law, shall be deemed to be final, and shall be executed in due 
form and without any renewed trial whatsoever, by the competent 
authority in the territories within which such judgments are to be 
carried out. 

If in a criminal case a mode of punishment has been applied which, 
according to new rules, is no longer applicable on the islands ceded 
after delivery, the nearest corresponding punishment in the new 
rules shall be applied. 

(2) Civil suits or criminal actions pending before the first courts, 
in which the pleadings have not been closed at the same time, shall 
be confirmed before the tribunals established in the ceded islands 
after the delivery, in accordance with the law which shall thereafter 
be in force. 

(3) Civil suits and criminal actions pending at the said time 
before the Superior Court or the Supreme Court in Denmark shall 
continue to be prosecuted before the Danish courts until final judg- 
ment according to the law hitherto in force. The judgment shall be 
executed in due form by the competent authority in the territories 
within which such judgment should be carried out. 

Article 9 

The rights of property secured by copyrights and patents acquired 
by Danish subjects in the Islands ceded at the time of exchange 
of the ratifications of this treaty, shall continue to be respected. 

Article 10 

Treaties, conventions and all other international agreements of 
any nature existing between Denmark and the United States shall 
eo ipso extend, in default of a provision to the contrary, also to the 
ceded islands. 

Article 11 

In case of differences of opinion arising between the High Con- 
tracting Parties in regard to the interpretation or application of this 
convention, such differences, if they cannot be regulated through 



RATIFICATION 41 

diplomatic negotiations, shall be submitted for arbitration to the 
permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague. 

Article 12 

The ratifications of this convention shall be exchanged at Wash- 
ington as soon as possible after ratification by both of the High 
Contracting Parties according to their respective procedure. 

In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed and 
sealed this convention in the English and Danish languages. 

Done at New York this fourth day of August, one thousand nine 
hundred and sixteen. 

[seal.] Eobert Lansing. 

[seal.] C. ' Brun. 

And whereas in giving advice and consent to the ratification of 
the said Convention, it was declared by the Senate of the United 
States in their resolution that "such advice and consent are given 
with the understanding, to be expressed as a part of the instrument 
of ratification, that such Convention shall not be taken and con- 
strued by the High Contracting Parties as imposing any trust upon 
the United States with respect to any funds belonging to the Danish 
National Church in the Danish West Indian Islands, or in which 
the said Church may have an interest, nor as imposing upon the 
United States any duty or responsibility with respect to the man- 
agement of any property belonging to said Church, beyond pro- 
tecting said Church in the possession and use of church property 
as stated in said Convention, in the same manner and to the same 
extent only as other churches shall be protected in the possession 
and use of their several properties ; " 

And whereas it was further provided in the said resolution " That 
the Senate advises and consents to the ratification of the said Con- 
vention on condition that the attitude of the United States in this 
particular, as set forth in the above proviso, be made the subject 
of an exchange of notes between the Governments of the two High 
Contracting Parties, so as to make it plain that this condition is 
understood and accepted by the two Governments, the purpose hereof 
being to bring the said Convention clearly within the Constitutional 
powers of the United States with respect Co church establishment and 
freedom of religion"; 

And whereas this condition has been fulfilled by notes exchanged 
between the two High Contracting Parties on January 3, 1917; 

And whereas the said Convention has been duly ratified on both 
parts, and the ratifications of the two Governments were exchanged 



42 DANISH WEST INDIES CONVENTION 

in the City of Washington, on the seventeenth day of January, one 
thousand nine hundred and seventeen; 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Woodrow Wilson, President 
of the United States of America, have caused the said Convention to 
be made public, to the end that the same and every article and 
clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the 
United States and the citizens thereof, subject to the said under- 
standing of the Senate of the United States. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the 
seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington this twenty-fifth day of January 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and seventeen, 
and of the Independence of the United States of America the one 
hundred and forty-first. 

[seal.] Woodrow Wilson 

By the President : 
Kobert Lansing, 

Secretary of State. 

DECLARATION 

In proceeding this day to the signature of the Convention respect- 
ing the cession of the Danish West Indian Islands to the United 
States of America, the undersigned Secretary of State of the United 
States of America, duly authorized by his Government, has the 
honor to declare that the Government of the United States of 
America will not object to the Danish Government extending their 
political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland. 

Robert Lansing. 

New York, August 4, 1916. 

[exchange of notes mentioned in proclamation] 

[The Secretary of State to the Banish Minister'] 

Department of State, 
Washington, January 3, 1917. 
Sir : I have the honor to inform you that the Senate of the United 
States by its resolution of ratification has advised and consented to 
the ratification of the convention between the United States and 
Denmark, ceding to the United States the Danish West Indian 
Islands, with the following provisos : 

Provided, however, That it is declared by the Senate that in advising and 
consenting to the ratification of the said convention, such advice and con- 
sent are given with the understanding, to be expressed as a part of the 
instrument of ratification, that such Convention shall not be taken and con- 
strued by the High Contracting Parties as imposing any trust upon the United 



provisos 43 

States with respect to any funds belonging to the Danish National Church 
in the Danish West Indian Islands, or in which the said church may have an 
interest, nor as imposing upon the United States any duty or responsibility 
with respect to the management of any property belonging to said church, 
beyond protecting said church in the possession and use of church property 
as stated in said Convention, in the same manner and to the same extent 
only as other churches shall be protected in the possession and use of their 
several properties. And provided further, that the Senate advises and con- 
sents to the ratification of the said Convention on condition that the attitude 
of the United States in this particular, as set forth in the above proviso, be 
made the subject of an exchange of notes between the Governments of the 
two High Contracting Parties, so as to make it plain that this condition is 
understood and accepted by the two Governments, the purpose hereof being 
to bring the said Convention clearly within the Constitutional powers of 
the United States with respect to church establishment and freedom of 
Teligion. 

In view of this resolution of the Senate I have the honor to state 
that it is understood and accepted by the Government of the United 
States and the Government of Denmark that the provisions of this 
Convention referring to the property and funds belonging to the 
Danish National Church in the Danish West Indian Islands shall not 
be taken and construed by the High Contracting Parties as imposing 
any trust upon the United States with respect to any funds belong- 
ing to the Danish National Church in the Danish West Indian 
Islands, or in which the said church may have an interest nor as 
imposing upon the United States any duty or responsibility with 
respect to the management of any property belonging to said church, 
beyond protecting said church in the possession and use of church 
property as stated in said Convention, in the same manner and to 
the same extent only as other churches shall be protected in the pos- 
session and use of their several properties. 

I trust that your Government will in a formal reply to this com- 
munication accept this understanding as to the meaning and con- 
struction of the provisions of said Convention in accordance with 
the foregoing resolution of the Senate. 

Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. 

Robert Lansing 
Mr. Constantin Brttn, 

Minister of Den/mark. 



[The Danish Minister to the Secretary of State] 

The Danish Legation 
Washington, D. C, January 3rd 1917. 
Sir: In reply to your communication of this day concerning the 
relation of the United States to the rights of the Established Church 



44 DANISH WEST INDIES CONVENTION 

in the Danish West Indies and to the provisions referring to this 
point in the convention between the United States and Denmark 
ceding to the States the Danish West Indian Islands, I have the 
honour to state that it is understood and accepted by the Government 
of Denmark and the Government of the United States that the pro- 
visions of his convention referring to the property and funds belong- 
ing to the Danish National Church in the Danish West Indian Islands, 
shall not be taken and construed by the high contracting parties as 
imposing any trust upon the United States with respect to any funds 
belonging to the Danish National Church in the Danish West Indian 
Islands or in which the said Church may have an interest nor as 
imposing upon the United States any duty or responsibility with 
respect to the management of any property belonging to said church 
beyond protecting said church in the possession and use of church 
property as stated in said convention in the same manner and to the- 
same extent only as other churches shall be protected in the posses- 
sion and use of their several properties. 

It will be evident from the above that the Danish Government 
accept the understanding as to the meaning and construction of the^ 
provisions of the said convention in accordance with the resolution of 
the United States Senate concerning the question of the rights of the* 
Church in the Islands. 

I have the honor to be, Sir, with the highest consideration, 
Your most obedient and humble servant, 

C. BruNv 

The Honorable Robert Lansing, 

Secretary of State of the United States. 



SPITSBERGEN 

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND OTHER POWERS 
RELATING TO SPITSBERGEN » 

[Signed at Paris, February 9, 1920; ratification advised by tbe Senate, February 18, 
1924 ; ratified by the President, March 4, 1924 ; ratification of the United States, de- 
posited with the Government of France, April 2, 1924 ; proclaimed, June 10, 1924] 

By the President of the United States of America 

A PROCLAMATION 

Whereas a Treaty relating to Spitsbergen was signed at Paris 
on February 9, 1920, by the plenipotentiaries of the United States, 
Great Britain, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Norway, the Nether- 
lands, and Sweden, the original of which Treaty being in the English 
and French languages is word for word as follows : 

The President of the United States of America; His Majesty 
the King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions 
beyond the Seas, Emperor of India; His Majesty the King of Den- 
mark; the President of the French Republic; His Majesty the 
King of Italy; His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; His Majesty 
the King of Norway; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; 
His Majesty the King of Sweden, 

Desirous, while recognising the sovereignty of Norway over the 
Archipelago of Spitsbergen, including Bear Island, of seeing these 
territories provided with an equitable regime, in order to assure 
their development and peaceful utilisation, 

Have appointed as their respective Plenipotentiaries with a view 
to concluding a Treaty to this effect: 

The President of the United States of America : 

Mr. Hugh Campbell Wallace, Ambassador Extraordinary 
and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at 
Paris ; 
His Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the 
British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India : 

The Right Honourable the Earl of Derby, K. G., G. C. V. O., 
C. B., His Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 
at Paris: 



Treaty Series, No. 686. 

45 



TREATY AS TO SPITSBERGEN 

And 

for the Dominion of Canada : 

The Right Honourable Sir George Halsey Ferley, K. C. M. G. r 
High Commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom; 
for the Commonwealth of Australia : 

The Eight Honourable Andrew Fisher, High Commissioner 
for Australia in the United Kingdom ; 
for the Dominion of New Zealand : 

The Right Honourable Sir Thomas MacKenzie, K. C. M. G. r 
High Commissioner for New Zealand in the United King- 
dom; 
for the Union of South Africa : 

Mr. Reginald Andrew Blankenberg, O. B. E., Acting High 
Commissioner for South Africa in the United Kingdom; 
for India: 

The Right Honourable the Earl of Derby, K. G., G. C. V. O., 
C. B.; 
His Majesty the King of Denmark: 

Mr. Herman Anker Bernhoft, Envoy Extraordinary and 
Minister Plenipotentiary of H. M. the King of Denmark 
at Paris; 
The President of the French Republic : 

Mr. Alexander Millerand, President of the Council, Minister 
for Foreign Affairs; 
His Majesty the King of Italy : 

The Honorable Maggiorino Ferraris, Senator of the King- 
dom; 
His Majesty the Emperor of Japan: 

Mr. K. Matsui, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipoten- 
tiary of H. M. the Emperor of Japan at Paris ; 
His Majesty the King of Norway : 

Baron Wedel Jarlsberg, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister 
Plenipotentiary of H. M. the King of Norway at Paris ; 
Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands: 

Mr. John Loudon, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Pleni- 
potentiary of H. M. the Queen of the Netherlands at Paris ; 
His Majesty the King of Sweden : 

Count J.-J.-A. Ehrensvard, Envoy Extraordinary and Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary of H. M. the King of Sweden at 
Paris ; 
Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and 
due form, have agreed as follows : 



sovereignty, fishing, entry 47 

Article 1 

The High Contracting Parties undertake to recognise, subject to 
the stipulations of the present Treaty, the full and absolute sov- 
ereignty of Norway over the Archipelago of Spitsbergen, compris- 
ing, with Bear Island or Beeren-Eiland, all the islands situated 
between 10° and 35° longitude East of Greenwich and between 
74° and 81° latitude North, especially West Spitsbergen, North-East 
Land, Barents Island, Edge Island, Wiche Islands, Hope Island or 
Hopen-Eiland, and Prince Charles Foreland, together with all 
islands great or small and rocks appertaining thereto (see annexed 
map). 

Article 2 

Ships and nationals of all the High Contracting Parties shall 
enjoy equally the rights of fishing and hunting in the territories 
specified in Article 1 and in their territorial waters. 

Norway shall be free to maintain, take or decree suitable measures 
to insure the preservation and, if necessary, the re-constitution of the 
fauna and flora of the said regions, and their territorial waters; it 
being clearly understood that these measures shall always be ap- 
plicable equally to the nationals of all the High Contracting Parties 
without any exemption, privilege or favour whatsoever, direct or 
indirect to the advantage of any one of them. 

Occupiers of land whose rights have been recognised in accordance 
with the terms of Articles 6 and 7 will enjoy the exclusive right of 
hunting on their own land: (1) in the neighbourhood of their 
habitations, houses, stores, factories and installations, constructed 
for the purpose of developing their property, under conditions laid 
down by the local police regulations; (2) within a radius of 10 
kilometres round the headquarters of their place of business or 
works; and in both cases, subject always to the observance of regula- 
tions made by the Norwegian Government in accordance with the 
conditions laid down in the present Article. 

Article 3 

The nationals of all the High Contracting Parties shall have equal 
liberty of access and entry for any reason or object whatever to the 
waters, fjords and ports of the territories specified in Article 1; 
subject to the observance of local laws and regulations, they may 
carry on there without impediment all maritime, industrial, mining 
and commercial operations on a footing of absolute equality. 

They shall be admitted under the same conditions of equality to 
the exercise and. practice of all maritime, industrial, mining or" com- 



48 TREATY AS TO SPITSBERGEN 

mercial enterprises both on land and in the territorial waters, and 
no monopoly shall be established on any account or for any enter- 
prise whatever. 

Notwithstanding any rules relating to coasting trade which may 
be in force in Norway, ships of the High Contracting Parties going 
to or coming from the territories specified in Article 1 shall have 
the right to put into Norwegian ports on their outward or homeward 
voyage for the purpose of taking on board or disembarking passen- 
gers or cargo going to or coming from the said territories, or for any 
other purpose. 

It is agreed that in every respect and especially with regard to 
exports, imports and transit traffic, the nationals of all the High 
Contracting Parties, their ships and goods shall not be subject to 
any charges or restrictions whatever which are not borne by the 
nationals, ships or goods which enjoy in Norway the treatment of the 
most favoured nation; Norwegian nationals, ships or goods being 
for this purpose assimilated to those of the other High Contracting 
Parties, and not treated more favourably in any respect. 

No charge or restriction shall be imposed on the exportation of any 
goods to the territories of any of the Contracting Powers other or 
more onerous than on the exportation of similar goods to the terri- 
tory of any other Contracting Power (including Norway) or to any 
other destination. 

Article 4 

All public wireless telegraphy stations established or to be estab- 
lished by, or with the authorisation of, the Norwegian Government 
within the territories referred to in Article 1 shall always be open 
on a footing of absolute equality to communications from ships of 
all flags and from nationals of the High Contracting Parties, under 
the conditions laid down in the Wireless Telegraphy Convention of 
July 5, 1912, or in the subsequent International Convention which 
may be concluded to replace it. 

Subject to international obligations arising out of a state of war, 
owners of landed property shall always be at liberty to establish and 
use for their own purposes wireless telegraphy installations, which 
shall be free to communicate on private business with fixed or mov- 
ing wireless stations, including those on board ships and aircraft. 

Article 5 

The High Contracting Parties recognise the utility of establishing 
an international meteorological station in the territories specified in 
Article 1, the organisation of which shall form the subject of a sub- 
sequent Convention. 



REGULATIONS 49 

Conventions shall also be concluded laying down the conditions 
under which scientific investigations may be conducted in the said 

territories. 

Article 6 

Subject to the provisions of the present Article, acquired rights 
of nationals of the High Contracting Parties shall be recognised. 

Claims arising from taking possession or from occupation of land 
before the signature of the present Treaty shall be dealt with in 
accordance with the Annex hereto, which will have the same force 
and effect as the present Treaty. 

Article 7 

With regard to methods of acquisition, enjoyment and exercise of 
the right of ownership of property, including mineral rights, in the 
territories specified in Article 1, Norway undertakes to grant to all 
nationals of the High Contracting Parties treatment based on com- 
plete equality and in conformity with the stipulations of the present 
Treaty. 

Expropriation may be resorted to only on grounds of public 
utility and on payment of proper compensation. 

Article 8 

Norway undertakes to provide for the territories specified in 
Article 1 mining regulations which, especially from the point of 
view of imposts, taxes or charges of any kind, and of general or 
particular labour conditions, shall exclude all privileges, monopolies 
or favours for the benefit of the State or of the nationals of any 
one of the High Contracting Parties, including Norway, and shall 
guarantee to the paid staff of all categories the remuneration and 
protection necessary for their physical, moral and intellectual wel- 
fare. 

Taxes, dues and duties levied shall be devoted exclusively to the 
said territories and shall not exceed what is required for the object 
in view. 

So far, particularly, as the exportation of minerals is concerned, 
the Norwegian Government shall have the right to levy an export 
duty which shall not exceed 1% of the maximum value of the 
minerals exported up to 100,000 tons, and beyond that quantity 
the duty will be proportionately diminished. The value shall be 
fixed at the end of the navigation season by calculating the average 
free on board price obtained. 

Three months before the date fixed for their coming into force, 
the draft mining regulations shall be communicated by the Nor- 



,50 TREATY AS TO SPITSBERGEN 

wegian Government to the other Contracting Powers. If during 
this period one or more of the said Powers propose to modify these 
regulations before they are applied, such proposals shall be com- 
municated by the Norwegian Government to the other Contracting 
Powers in order that they may be submitted to examination and 
the decision of a Commission composed of one representative of 
each of the said Powers. This Commission shall meet at the in- 
vitation of the Norwegian Government and shall come to a decision 
within a period of three months from the date of its first meeting. 
Its decisions shall be taken by a majority. 

Article 9 

Subject to the rights and duties resulting from the admission of 
Norway to the League of Nations, Norway undertakes not to create 
nor to allow the establishment of any naval base in the territories 
specified in Article 1 and not to construct any fortification in the said 
territories, which may never be used for warlike purposes. 

Article 10 

Until the recognition by the High Contracting Parties of a Rus- 
sian Government shall permit Russia to adhere to the present Treaty, 
Russian nationals and companies shall enjoy the same rights as 
nationals of the High Contracting Parties. 

Claims in the territories specified in Article 1 which they may 
have to put forward shall be presented under the conditions laid 
down in the present Treaty (Article 6 and Annex) through the inter- 
mediary of the Danish Government, who declare their willingness to 
lend their good offices for this purpose. 

The present Treaty, of which the French and English texts are 
both authentic, shall be ratified. 

Ratifications shall be deposited at Paris as soon as possible. 

Powers of which the seat of the Government is outside Europe 
may confine their action to informing the Government of the French 
Republic, through their diplomatic representative at Paris, that 
their ratification has been given, and in this case, they shall transmit 
the instrument as soon as possible. 

The present Treaty will come into force, in so far as the stipula- 
tions of Article 8 are concerned, from the date of its ratification by 
all the signatory Powers ; and in all other respects on the same date 
as the mining regulations provided for in that Article. 

Third Powers will be invited by the Government of the French 
Republic to adhere to the present Treaty duly ratified- This adhe- 
sion shall be effected by a communication addressed to the French 



CLAIMS 



51 



Government, which will undertake to notify the other Contracting 
Parties. 

In witness whereof the above-named Plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Treaty. 

Done at Paris, the ninth day of February, 1920, in duplicate, one 
copy to be transmitted to the Government of His Majesty the King 
of Norway, and one deposited in the archives of the French Repub- 
lic; authenticated copies will be transmitted to the other Signatory 
Powers. 



[ L. S.] 


Hugh C. Wallace. 


f L. S/ 


H. A. Bernhoft. 


[L. S.] 


Derby. 


[l. s.' 


A. MlLLERAND. 


[L. S.] 


George H. Perley. 


[l. s.~ 


| Maggiorino Ferraris 


1>. S.] 


Andrew Fisher. 


[l. s.~ 


K. Matsui. 


[L. S.] 


Th. Mackenzie. 


[l. s.~ 


Wedel Jarlsberg. 


[L. s.] 


R. A. Blankenberg. 


[l. s." 


| J. Loudon. 


[I, S.] 


Derby. 


[l. s." 

ANNEX 


| J. Ehrensvard. 



(1) Within three months from the coming into force of the present 
Treaty, notification of all claims to land which had been made to 
any Government before the signature of the present Treaty must be 
sent by the Government of the claimant to a Commissioner charged 
to examine such claims. The Commissioner will be a judge or 
jurisconsult of Danish nationality possessing the necessary qualifica- 
tions for the task, and shall be nominated by the Danish Govern- 
ment. 

(2) The notification must include a precise delimitation of the 
land claimed and be accompanied by a map on a scale of not less 
than 1/1,000,000 on which the land claimed is clearly marked. 

(3) The notification must be accompanied by the deposit of a 
sum of one penny for each acre (40 acres) of land claimed, to defray 
the expenses of the examination of the claims. 

(4) The Commissioner will be entitled to require from the claim- 
ants any further documents or information which he may consider 
necessary. 

(5) The Commissioner will examine the claims so notified. For 
this purpose he will be entitled to avail himself of such expert as- 
sistance as he may consider necessary, and in case of need to cause 
investigations to be carried out on the spot. 

(6) The remuneration of the Commissioner will be fixed by agree- 
ment between the Danish Government and the other Governments 



52 ANNEX, TREATY AS TO SPITSBERGEN 

concerned. The Commissioner will fix the remuneration of such as- 
sistants as he considers it necessary to employ. 

(7) The Commissioner, after examining the claims, will prepare 
a report showing precisely the claims which he is of opinion should 
be recognised at once and those which, either because they are dis- 
puted or for any other reason, he is of opinion should be submitted 
to arbitration as hereinafter provided. Copies of this report will be 
forwarded by the Commissioner to the Governments concerned. 

(8) If the amount of the sums deposited in accordance with 
clause (3) is insufficient to cover the expenses of the examination of 
the claims, the Commissioner will, in every case where he is of opin- 
ion that a claim should be recognised, at once state what further sum 
the claimant should be required to pay. This sum will be based on 
the amount of the land to which the claimant's title is recognised. 

If the sums deposited in accordance with clause (3) exceed the 
expenses of the examination, the balance will be devoted to the cost 
of the arbitration hereinafter provided for. 

(9) Within three months from the date of the report referred to 
in clause (7) of this paragraph, the Norwegian Government shall 
take the necessary steps to confer upon claimants whose claims have 
been recognised by the Commissioner a valid title securing to them 
the exclusive property in the land in question, in accordance with the 
laws and regulations in force or to be enforced in the territories 
specified in Article 1 of the present Treaty, and subject to the mining 
regulations referred to in Article 8 of the present Treaty. 

In the event, however, of a further payment being required in 
accordance with clause (8) of this paragraph, a provisional title 
only will be delivered, which title will become definitive on payment 
by the claimant, within such reasonable period as the Norwegian 
Government may fix, of the further sum required of him. 



Claims which for any reason the Commissioner referred to in 
clause (1) of the preceding paragraph has not recognised as valid 
will be settled in accordance with the following provisions : 

(1) Within three months from the date of the report referred to 
in clause (7) of the preceding paragraph, each of the Governments 
whose nationals have been found to possess claims which have not 
been recognised will appoint an arbitrator. 

The Commissioner will be the President of the Tribunal so con- 
stituted. In cases of equal division of opinion, he shall have the 
deciding vote. He will nominate a Secretary to receive the docu- 
ments referred to in clause (2) of this paragraph and to make the 
necessary arrangements for the meeting of the Tribunal. 



CLAIMS 53 

(2) Within one month from the appointment of the Secretary 
referred to in clause (1) the claimants concerned will send to him 
through the intermediary of their respective Governments state- 
ments indicating precisely their claims and accompanied by such 
documents and arguments as they may wish to submit in support 
thereof. 

(3) Within two months from the appointment of the Secretary 
referred to in clause (1) the Tribunal shall meet at Copenhagen 
for the purpose of dealing with the claims which have been sub- 
mitted to it. 

(4) The language of the Tribunal shall be English. Documents 
or arguments may be submitted to it by the interested parties in 
their own language, but in that case must be accompanied by an 
English translation. 

(5) The claimants shall be entitled, if they so desire, to be heard 
by the Tribunal either in person or by counsel, and the Tribunal 
shall be entitled to call upon the claimants to present such addi- 
tional explanations, documents or arguments as it may think neces- 
sary. 

(6) Before the hearing of any case the Tribunal shall require 
from the parties a deposit or security for such sum as it may think 
necessary to cover the share of each party in the expenses of the 
Tribunal. In fixing the amount of such sum the Tribunal shall 
base itself principally on the extent of the land claimed. The 
Tribunal shall also have power to demand a further deposit from 
the parties in cases where special expense is involved. 

(7) The honorarium of the arbitrators shall be calculated per 
month, and fixed by the Governments concerned. The salary of the 
Secretary and any other persons employed by the Tribunal shall be 
fixed by the President. 

(8) Subject to the provisions of this Annex the Tribunal shall 
have full power to regulate its own procedure. 

(9) In dealing with the claims the Tribunal shall take into con- 
sideration : g 

(a) any applicable rules of International Law; 
(h) the general principles of justice and equity; 
(c) the following circumstances : 

(i) the date on which the land claimed was first occupied by 

the claimant or his predecessors in title ; 
(ii) the date on which the claim was notified to the Govern- 
ment of the claimant ; 
(iii) the extent to which the claimant or his predecessors in 
title have developed and exploited the land claimed. 
In this connection the Tribunal shall take into account 



54 ANNEX, TREATY AS TO SPITSBERGEN 

the extent to which the claimants may have been pre- 
vented from developing their undertakings by condi- 
tions or restrictions resulting from the war of 1914- 
1919. 

(10) All the expenses of the Tribunal shall be divided among 
the claimants in such proportion as the Tribunal shall decide. If 
the amount of the sums paid in accordance with clause (6) is larger 
than the expenses of the Tribunal, the balance shall be returned to 
the parties whose claims have been recognised in such proportion as 
the Tribunal shall think fit. 

(11) The decisions of the Tribunal shall be communicated by it 
to the Governments concerned, including in every case the Nor- 
wegian Government. 

The Norwegian Government shall within three months from the 
receipt of each decision take the necessary steps to confer upon the 
claimants whose claims have been recognised by the Tribunal a valid 
title to the land in question, in accordance with the laws and regu- 
lations in force or to be enforced in the territories specified in 
Article 1, and subject to the mining regulations referred to in 
Article 8 of the present Treaty. Nevertheless, the titles so conferred 
will only become definitive on the payment by the claimant concerned, 
within such reasonable period as the Norwegian Government may 
fix, of his share of the expenses of the Tribunal. 



Any claims which are not notified to the Commissioner in ac- 
cordance with clause (1) of paragraph 1, or which not having been 
recognised by him are not submitted to the Tribunal in accordance 
with paragraph 2, will be finally extinguished. 

And whereas, the said Treaty has been duly ratified by the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, by and with the advice and consent 
of the Senate thereof, and the instrument of ratification was, in 
conformity with Article X of the Treaty, deposited with the Min- 
istry for Foreign Affairs of the Government of the French Kepublic, 
at Paris, on April 2, 1924 : 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Calvin Coolidge, President of 
the United States of America, have caused the said Treaty to be 
made public to the end that the same and every article and clause- 
thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United 
States and the citizens thereof. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
the seal of the United States to be affixed. 



PROCLAMATION 55 

Done at the city of Washington this tenth day of June in the year 
of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, and of the 
Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and 
forty-eighth. • 

[seal.] Calvin Coolidge: 

By the President: 

Charles E. Hughes 

Secretary of State. 

[note by the department of state] 

The map attached to the original treaty and referred to in Article 
1 is not here reproduced. 



NEUTRALISATION 

CONVENTION RELATING TO THE NON-FORTIFICATION AND NEU- 
TRALISATION OF THE AALAND ISLANDS, SIGNED AT GENEVA, 
OCTOBER 20, 1921 10 

[Official text in Ffench. The registration of this convention took place April 6, 1922] 

The President of Germany, His Majesty the King of Denmark 
and of Iceland, the Head of State of the Esthonian Republic, The 
President of the Republic of Finland, the President of the French 
Republic, His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, 
Emperor of India, His Majesty the King of Italy, the Head of 
State of the Republic of Latvia, the Head of the Polish State, and 
His Majesty the King of Sweden, having agreed to carry out the 
recommendation formulated by the Council of the League of Na- 
tions in its Resolution of June 24, 1921, that a Convention should 
be concluded between the interested Powers with a view to the non- 
fortification and neutralisation of the Aaland Islands in order that 
these islands may never become a cause of danger from the military 
point of view; 

Have resolved for this purpose to supplement without prejudice 
thereto, the obligations assumed by Russia in the Convention of 
March 30, 1856, regarding the Aaland Islands, annexed to Treaty 
of Paris of the same date ; 

And have appointed the following as their plenipotentiaries: 

(Names of plenipotentiaries) 

Who, having deposited their full powers, found in good and due 
form, have agreed upon the following provisions : 

Article 1 

Finland, confirming, for her part, as far as necessary, the declara- 
tion made by Russia in the Convention of March 30, 1856, regard- 
ing the Aaland Islands, annexed to the Treaty of Paris of the same 
date, undertakes not to fortify that part of the Finnish Archipelago 
which is called "the Aaland Islands." 

Article 2 

I. The name " Aaland Islands " in the present Convention in- 
cludes all the islands, islets and reefs situated in the stretch of sea 
bounded by the following lines : 

10 1922, League of Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. IX, p. 213. 
56 



AALAND ISLAND ABEA 57 

(a) On the North by the parallel of latitude 60° 41' north; 

(b) On the East by the straight lines joining successively the 
following geographical points: 

(1) Lat. 60° 41',0 N. and long. 21° OO'.O E. of Greenwich 



(2) " 60 1 ' 35'.9 N. 

(3) " 60° 33'. 3 N. 

(4) " 60° 15'.8 N. 

(5) " 60° 11'.4 N. 

(6) " 60° 09'.4 N. 

(7) " 60° 05'.5 N. 

(8) " 60° 01'. 1 N. 

(9) " 59° 59'.0 N. 

(10) " 59° 53'.0 N. 

(11) " 59° 48'.5 N. 

(12) " 59° 27'.0 N. 



21° 06'. 9 E. 
21° 08'.6 E. 
21° 05'.5 E. 
21° 00'.4 E. 
21° 01'.2 E. 
21° 04'.3 E. 
21° 11'.3 E. 
21° 08'.3 E. 
21° 20'.0 E. 
21° 20'.0 E. 
20° 46'.3 E. 



(c) On the South by the parallel of latitude 59° 27' North; 

(d) On the West by the straight lines joining successively the 
following geographical points: 

(13) Lat. 59° 27' .0 N. and long. 20° 09' .7 E. of Greenwich 

(14) " 59° 47' .8 N. " " 19° 40' .0 E. " 

(15) M 60° 11' .8 N. " " 19° 05' .5 E. " 

(16) Middle of Market rock 

(" 60° 18' .4 N. " " 19° 08' .5 E. " ") 

(17) " 60° 41' .0 N. " " 19° 14' .4 E. " 

The lines joining points 14, 15 and 16 are those fixed by " the Topo- 
graphical Description of the Frontier between the Kingdom of 
Sweden and the Russian Empire in accordance with the demarcation 
of the year 1810, corrected to conform with the revision of 1888." 

The position of all the points mentioned in this Article is gen- 
erally taken from the British Admiralty map No. 2297, dated 1872 
(corrected up to August 1921) ; but for greater precision the position 
of points 1 to 11 is taken from the following maps; Finnish maps 
No. 32, 1921, No. 29, 1920, and Russian map No. 742, 1916 (corrected 
in March 1916). 

A copy of each of these maps is deposited with the Secretariat of 
the League of Nations. 

II. The territorial waters of the Aaland Islands are considered to 
extend for a distance of three marine miles from the low-water mark 
on the islands, islets and reefs not permanently submerged, delimited 
above ; nevertheless, these waters shall at no point extend beyond the 
lines fixed in § I of this Article. 

III. The whole of the islands, islets and reefs delimited in para- 
graph I and of the territorial waters defined in paragraph II con- 
stitute the zone to which the following Articles apply. 

57920—26 5 



58 aaland island convention 

Article 3 

No military or naval establishment or base of operations, no mili- 
tary aircraft establishment or base of operations, and no other instal- 
lation used for war purposes shall be maintained or set up in the 
zone described in Article 2. 

Article 4 

Except as provided in Article 7, no military, naval or air force of 
any Power shall enter or remain in the zone described in Article 2 ; 
the manufacture, import, transport and re-export of arms and imple- 
ments of war in this zone are strictly forbidden. 

The following provisions shall, however, be applied in time of 
peace : 

(a) In addition to the regular police force necessary to main- 
tain public order and security in the zone, in conformity with the 
general provisions in force in the Finnish Republic, Finland ma}^, if 
exceptional circumstances demand, send into the zone and keep there 
temporarily such other armed forces as shall be strictly necessary for 
the maintenance of order. 

(b) Finland also reserves the right for one or two of her light 
surface warships to visit the islands from time to time. These war- 
ships may then anchor temporarily in the waters of the islands. 
Apart from these ships, Finland may, if important special circum- 
stances demand, send into the waters of the zone and keep there tem- 
porarily other surface ships, which must in no case exceed a total 
displacement of 6,000 tons. 

The right to enter the archipelago and to anchor there temporarily 
cannot be granted by the Finnish Government to more than one 
warship of any other Power at a time. 

(c) Finland may fly her military or naval aircraft over the zone, 
but, except in cases of force majeure, landing there is prohibited. 

Article 5 

The prohibition to send warships into the zone described in Article 
2 or to station them there shall not prejudice the freedom of innocent 
passage through the territorial waters. Such passage shall continue 
to be governed by the international rules and usages in force. 

Article 6 

In time of war, the zone described in Article 2 shall be considered 
as a neutral zone and shall not, directly or indirectly, be used for any 
purpose connected with military operations. 



OBSERVANCE OF CONVENTION 59 

Nevertheless, in the event of a war affecting the Baltic Sea, Fin- 
land shall have the right, in order to assure respect for the neutrality 
of the Aaland Islands, temporarily to lay mines in the territorial 
waters of these islands and for this purpose to take such measures of 
a maritime nature as are strictly necessary. 

In such a case Finland shall at once refer the matter to the Council 
of the League of Nations. 

Article 7 

I. In order to render effective the guarantee provided in the Pre- 
amble of the present Convention, the High Contracting Parties shall 
apply, individually or jointly, to the Council of the League of Na- 
tions, asking that body to decide upon the measures to be taken 
either to assure the observance of the provisions of this Convention 
or to put a stop to any violation thereof. 

The High Contracting Parties undertake to assist in the measures 
which the Council of the League of Nations ma}^ decide upon for 
this purpose. 

When, for the purposes of this undertaking, the Council is called 
upon to make a decision under the above conditions, it will invite the 
Powers which are parties to the present Convention, whether Mem- 
bers of the League or not, to sit on the Council. The vote of the 
representative of the Power accused of having violated the provisions 
of this Convention shall not be necessary to constitute the unanimity 
required for the Council's decision. 

If unanimity cannot be obtained, each of the High Contracting 
Parties shall be entitled to take any measures which the Council by 
a two-thirds majority recommends, the vote of the representative of 
the Power accused of having violated the provisions of this Conven- 
tion not being counted. 

II. If the neutrality of the zone should be imperilled by a sudden 
attack either against the Aaland Islands or across them against the 
Finnish mainland, Finland shall take the necessary measures in the 
zone to check and repulse the aggressor until such time as the High 
Contracting Parties shall in conformity with the provisions of this 
Convention, be in a position to intervene to enforce respect for the 
neutrality of the islands. 

Finland shall refer the matter immediately to the Council. 

Article 8 

The provisions of this Convention shall remain in force in spite of 
&nj changes that may take place in the present status quo in the 
Baltic Sea. 



60 aaland island convention 

Article 9 

The Council of the League of Nations is requested to inform the 
Members of the League of the text of this Convention, in order 
that the legal status of the Aaland Islands, an integral part of the 
Eepublic of Finland, as defined by the provisions of this Conven- 
tion, may, in the interests of general peace, be respected by all as 
part of the actual rules of conduct among Governments. 

With the unanimous consent of the High Contracting Parties, 
this Convention may be submitted to any non-signatory Power 
whose accession may in future appear desirable, with a view to the 
formal adherence of such Power. 

Article 10 

This Convention shall be ratified. The protocol of the first deposit 
of ratification shall be drawn up as soon as the majority of the sig- 
natory Powers, including Finland and Sweden, are in a position 
to deposit their ratification. 

The Convention shall come into force for each signatory or acced- 
ing Power immediately on the deposit of such Power's ratification 
or instrument of accession. 

Deposit of ratification shall take place at Geneva with the Secre- 
tariat of the League of Nations, and any future instruments of acces- 
sion shall also be deposited there. 

In faith whereof the plenipotentiaries have signed this Conven- 
tion and have annexed their seals thereto. 

Done at Geneva, on the twentieth day of October, one thousand 
nine hundred and twenty-one, in a single copy, which shall remain 
in the Archives of the Secretariat of the League of Nations. A 
certified copy shall be sent by the Secretariat to each of the signatory 
Powers. 

(Signatures of plenipotentiaries) 



MANDATES 



11 



CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND FRANCE 
RESPECTING RIGHTS IN SYRIA AND THE LEBANON 12 

[Signed at Paris, April 4, 1924 ; ratifications exchanged at Paris, July 13, 1924] 

The President of the United States of America and the President 
of the French Republic, 

Whereas by the Treaty of Peace concluded with the Allied Powers, 
Turkey renounces all her rights and titles over Syria and the 
Lebanon, and, 

11 Mandates are usually designated as of class "A," " B," or " C," according as they 
are within former Turkish territory, Central Africa, or " South West Africa and certain 
of the South Pacific Islands." Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations 
provides : 

" To those colonies and territories which, as a consequence of the late war, have 
ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them, and 
which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous 
conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well- 
being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation, and that 
securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. 

" The best: method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of 
such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who, by reason of their resources, 
their experience, or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and 
who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Man- 
datories on behalf of the League. 

" The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development 
of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions, and 
other similar circumstances. 

" Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a 
stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally 
recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Man- 
datory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities 
must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. 

" Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Man- 
datory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which 
will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of 
public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic, 
and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or mili- 
tary and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police 
purposes and the defense of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the 
trade and commerce of other Members of the League. 

" There are territories, such as South- West Africa and certain of the South Pacific 
Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their 
remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the 
territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the 
laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards 
above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population. 

" In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual 
report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.. 

" The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Man- 
datory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly 
defined in each case by the Council. 

"A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual re- 
ports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the ob- 
servance of the mandates." 

The United States not being a party to the Covenant has negotiated special treaties 
in regard to several of the mandated areas, though not yet in regard to all. 

12 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 695. 

61 



62 MANDATE, SYRIA AND LEBANON 

Whereas Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations 
in the Treaty of Versailles provides that in the case of certain 
territories which as a consequence of the late war ceased to be under 
the sovereignty of the states which formerly governed them, man- 
dates should be issued and that the terms of the mandate should 
be explicitly denned in each case by the Council of the League, and, 

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed to entrust the 
mandate for Syria and the Lebanon to France, and, 

Whereas the terms of the said mandate have been defined by 
the Council of the League of Nations as follows : 

Article 1. — The Mandatory shall frame, within a period of three years 
from the coming into force of this mandate, an organic law for Syria and 
the Lebanon. 

This organic law shall be framed in agreement with the native authorities 
and shall take into account the rights, interests, and wishes of all the popu- 
lation inhabiting the said territory. The Mandatory shall further enact 
measures to facilities the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon 
as independent States. Pending the coming into effect of the organic law, 
the government of Syria and the Lebanon shall be conducted in accordance 
with the spirit of this mandate. 

The Mandatory shall, as far as circumstances permit, encourage local 
autonomy. 

Article 2. — The Mandatory may maintain its troops in the said territory 
for its defense. It shall further be empowered, until the entry into force 
of the organic law and the reestablishment of public security, to organize 
such local militia as may be necessary for the defense of the territory, and 
to employ this militia for defense and also for the maintenance of order. 
These local forces may only be recruited from the inhabitants of the said 
territory. 

The said militia shall thereafter be under the local authorities, subject 
to the authority and the control which the Mandatory shall retain over these 
forces. It shall not be used for purposes other than those above specified save 
with the consent of the Mandatory. 

Nothing shall preclude Syria and the Lebanon from contributing to the cost 
of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory stationed in the territory. 

The Mandatory shall at all times possess the right to make use of the ports, 
railways and means of communication of Syria and the Lebanon for the 
passage of its troops and of all materials, supplies, and fuel. 

Article 3. — The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the exclusive control 
of the foreign relations of Syria and the Lebanon and with the right to issue 
exequaturs to the consuls appointed by foreign Powers. Nationals of Syria 
and the Lebanon living outside the limits of the territory shall be under 
the diplomatic and consular protection of the Mandatory. 

Article 4. — The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no part of the 
territory of Syria and the Lebanon is ceded or leased or in any way placed 
under the control of a foreign Power. 

Article 5. — The privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits 
of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed by Capitulation or 
usage in the Ottoman Empire, shall not be applicable in Syria and the 
Lebanon. Foreign consular tribunals shall, however, continue to perform their 
duties until the coming into force of the new legal organization provided for in 
Article 6. 



TEEMS ' 63 

Unless the Powers whose nationals enjoyed the af ore-men tionecl privileges 
and immunities on August 1, 1914, shall have previously renounced the right 
to their re-establishment, or shall have agreed to their non-application during 
a specific period, these privileges and immunities shall at the expiration of the 
mandate be immediately re-established in their entirety or with such modifica- 
tions as may have been agreed upon between the Powers concerned. 

Article 6. — The Mandatory shall establish in Syria and the Lebanon a 
judicial system which shall assure to natives as well as to foreigners a com- 
plete guarantee of their rights. 

Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and for their religious 
interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and adminis- 
tration of Wakfs shall be exercised in complete accordance with religious law 
and the dispositions of the founders. 

Article 7. — Pending the conclusion of special extradition agreements, the 
extradition treaties at present in force between foreign Powers and the Manda- 
tory shall apply within the territory of Syria and the Lebanon. 

Article 8. — The Mandatory shall ensure to all complete freedom of con- 
science and the free exercise of all forms of worship which are consonant with 
public order and morality. No discrimination of any kind shall be made be- 
tween the inhabitants of Syria and the Lebanon on the ground of differences in 
race, religion or language. 

The Mandatory shall encourage public instruction, which shall be given 
through the medium of the native languages in use in the territory of Syria 
and the Lebanon. 

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the instruction 
and education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to 
such educational requirements of a general nature as the administration may 
impose, shall not be denied or impaired. 

Article 9. — The Mandatory shall refrain from all interference in the admin- 
istration of the Councils of management (Conseils de fabrigue) or in the 
management of religious communities and sacred shrines belonging to the 
various religions, the immunity of which has been expressly guaranteed. 

Article 10. — The supervision exercised by the Mandatory over the religious 
missions in Syria and the Lebanon shall be limited to the maintenance of pub- 
lic order and good government ; the activities of these religious missions shall 
in no way be restricted, nor shall their members be subjected to any restrictive 
measures on the ground of nationality, provided that their activities are 
confined to the domain of religion. 

The religious missions may also concern themselves with education and relief, 
subject to the general right of regulation and control by the Mandatory or of 
the local government, in regard to education, public instruction and charitable 
relief. 

Article 11. — The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in 
Syria or the Lebanon against the nationals, including societies and associations, 
of any state member of the League of Nations as compared with its own 
nationals, including societies and associations, or with the nationals of any 
other foreign state in matters concerning taxation or commerce, the exercise 
of professions or industries, or navigation, or in the treatment of ships or air- 
craft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Syria or the Lebanon 
against goods originating in or destined for any of the said states ; there shall 
be freedom of transit, under equitable conditions, across the said territory. 

Subject to the above, the Mandatory may impose or cause to be imposed by 
the local governments such taxes and customs duties as it may consider neces- 



MANDATE, SYRIA AND LEBANON 

sary. The Mandatory, or the local governments acting under its advice, may 
also conclude on grounds of contiguity any special customs arrangements with 
an adjoining country. 

The Mandatory may take or cause to be taken, subject to the provisions of 
paragraph 1 of this article, such steps as it may think best to ensure the de- 
velopment of the natural resources of the said territory and to safeguard the 
interests of the local population. 

Concessions for the development of these natural resources shall be granted 
without distinction of nationality between the nationals of all states members 
of the League of Nations, but on condition that they do not infringe upon the 
authority of the local government. Concessions in the nature of a general 
monopoly shall not be granted. This clause shall in no way limit the right of 
the Mandatory to create monopolies of a purely fiscal character in the interest 
of the territory of Syria and the Lebanon, and with a view to assuring to the 
territory the fiscal resources which would appear best adapted to the local 
needs, or, in certain cases, with a view to developing the natural resources 
either directly by the state or through an organization under its control, pro- 
vided that this does not involve either directly or indirectly the creation of a 
monopoly of the natural resources in favor of the Mandatory or its nationals, 
nor involve any preferential treatment which would be incompatible with the 
economic, commercial and industrial equality guaranteed above. 

Article 12. — The Mandatory shall adhere, on behalf of Syria and the 
Lebanon, to any general international agreements already existing, or which 
may be concluded hereafter with the approval of the League of Nations, in 
respect of the following : the slave trade, the traffic in drugs, the traffic in 
arms and ammunition, commercial equality, freedom of transit and navigation, 
aerial navigation, postal, telegraph or wireless communications, and measures 
for the protection of literature, art or industries. 

Article 13. — The Mandatory shall secure the adhesion of Syria and the 
Lebanon, so far as social, religious and other conditions permit, to such 
measures of common utility as may be adopted by the League of Nations for 
preventing and combating disease, including diseases of animals and plants. 

Article 14. — The Mandatory shall draw up and put into force within twelve 
months from this date a law of antiquities in conformity with the following 
provisions. This law shall ensure equality of treatment in the matter of exca- 
vations and archaeological research to the nationals of all states members of 
the League of Nations. 

(1) "Antiquity" means any construction or any product of human activity 
earlier than the year 1700 a. d. 

(2) The law for the protection of antiquities shall proceed by encourage- 
ment rather than by threat. 

Any person who, having discovered an antiquity without being furnished 
with the authorisation referred to in paragraph 5, reports the same to an 
official of the competent department, shall be rewarded according to the value 
of the discovery. 

(3) No antiquity may be disposed of except to the competent department, 
unless this department renounces the acquisition of any such antiquity. 

No antiquity may leave the country without an export license from the said 
department. 

(4) Any person who maliciously or negligently destroys or damages an 
antiquity shall be liable to a penalty to be fixed. 

(5) No clearing of ground or digging with the object of finding antiquities 
shall be permitted, under penalty of fine, except to persons authorise** by the 
competent department. 



TERMS 65 

(6) Equitable terms shall be fixed for expropriation, temporary or perma- 
nent, of lands which might be of historical or archaeological interest. 

(7) Authorization to excavate shall only be granted to persons who show 
sufficient guarantees of archaeological experience. The Mandatory shall not, 
in granting these authorisations act in such a way as to exclude scholars of 
any nation without good grounds. 

(8) The proceeds of excavations may be divided between the excavator 
and the competent department in a proportion fixed by that department. 
If division seems impossible for scientific reasons, the excavator shall receive 
a fair indemnity in lieu of a part of the find. 

Aeticle 15. — Upon the coming into force of the organic law referred to in 
Article 1, an arrangement shall be made between the Mandatory and the 
local governments for reimbursement by the latter of all expenses incurred 
by the Mandatory in organizing the administration, developing local re- 
sources, and carrying out permanent public works, of which the country re- 
tains the benefit. Such arrangement shall be communicated to the Council 
of the League of Nations. 

Article 16. — French and Arabic shall be the official languages of Syria and 
the Lebanon. 

Article 17. — The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of 
Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures 
taken during the year to carry out the provisions of this mandate. Copies 
of all laws and regulations promulgated during the year shall be attached to 
the said report. 

Article 18. — The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is re- 
quired for any modification of the terms of this mandate. 

Article 19. — On the termination of the mandate, the Council of the League 
of Nations shall use its influence to safeguard for the future the fulfill- 
ment by the government of Syria and the Lebanon of the financial obliga- 
tions, including pensions and allowances, regularly assumed by the adminis- 
tration of Syria or of the Lebanon during the period of the mandate. 

Article 20. — The Mandatory agrees that if any dispute whatever should 
arise between the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations, 
relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the 
mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be sub- 
mitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice provided for by 
Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. 

Whereas the mandate in the above terms came into force on 
September 29, 1923, and, 

Whereas the United States of America by participating in the war 
against Germany contributed to her defeat and the defeat of her 
allies and to the renunciation of the rights and titles of her allies 
in the territory transferred by them, but has not ratified the Cove- 
nant of the League of Nations embodied in the Treaty of Versailles, 
and, 

Whereas the Government of the United States and the Govern- 
ment of France desire to reach a definite understanding with re- 
spect to the rights of the two Governments and their respective 
nationals in Syria and the Lebanon ; 

57920—26 6 



66 MANDATE, SYRIA AND LEBANON 

The President of the United States of America and the President 
of the French Republic have decided to conclude a convention to 
this effect and have nominated as their Plenipotentiaries: 

The President of the United States of America. 

His Excellency Mr. Myron T. Herrick, Ambassador Extraordi- 
nary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to France. 

And the President of the French Republic : 

M. Raymond Poincare, Senator, President of the Council, Minis- 
ter of Foreign Affairs, 

Who, after communicating to each other their respective full pow- 
ers found in good and due form, have agreed as follows : 

Article 1 

Subject to the provisions of the present convention the United 
States consents to the administration by the French Republic, pur- 
suant to the aforesaid mandate, of Syria and the Lebanon. 

Article 2 

The United States and its nationals shall have and enjoy all the 
rights and benefits secured under the terms of the mandate to mem- 
bers of the League of Nations and their nationals, notwithstanding 
the fact that the United States is not a member of the League of 
Nations. 

Article 3 

Vested American property rights in the mandated territories shall 
be respected and in no way impaired. 

Article 4 

A duplicate of the annual report to be made by the mandatory 
under Article 17 of the mandate shall be furnished to the United 
States. 

Article 5 

Subject to the provisions of any local laws for the maintenance 
of public order and public morals, the nationals of the United States 
will be permitted freely to establish and maintain educational, 
philanthropic and religious institutions in the mandated.. t^itory, 
to receive voluntary applicants and to teach in the English language. 

Article 6 

Nothing contained in the present convention shall be affected by 
any modification which may be made in the terms of the mandate as 



MANDATE, EUANDA-URUNDI 67 

recited above unless such modification shall have been assented to by 
the United States. 

Article 7 

The present convention shall be ratified in accordance with the re- 
spective constitutional methods of the high contracting parties. The 
ratifications shall be exchanged at Paris as soon as practicable. The 
present convention shall take effect on the date of the exchange of 
ratifications. 

In witness whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed 
this convention and have affixed thereto their seals. 

Done in duplicate at Paris, the 4th day of April, in the year 1924. 

[seal] Myron T. Herrick. 
[seal] R. Poincare. 

WITH TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND BELGIUM 
CONCERNING THE MANDATE OVER THE TERRITORY OF RUANDA- 
URUNDI, WITH PROTOCOL 13 

[Signed at Brussels, April 18, 1923, and January 21, 1924 ; ratifications exchanged, 

November 18, 1924] 

Whereas by Article 119 of the Treaty of Peace signed at Versailles 
the 28th of June 1919, Germany renounced in favor of the Principal 
Allied and Associated Powers all her rights and titles over her over- 
sea possessions; and 

Whereas by Article 22 of the same instrument it was provided that 
certain territories, which as a result of the war had ceased to be 
under the sovereignty of the states which formerly governed them, 
should be placed under the mandate of another Power, and that the 
terms of the mandate should be explicitly defined in each case by 
the Council of the League of Nations ; and 

Whereas the benefits accruing to the United States under the afore- 
said Article 119 of the Treaty of Versailles were confirmed by the 
treaty between the United States and Germany, signed on August 
25, 1921, to restore friendly relations between the two nations; and 

Whereas four of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, to 
wit: the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, agreed that the 
King of the Belgians should exercise the mandate for part of the 
former Colony of German East Africa; and 

Whereas the terms of the said mandate have been defined by the 
Council of the League of Nations as follows : 

Article 1 

The territory over which a mandate is conferred upon His Majesty the King 
of the Belgians (hereinafter called the Mandatory) comprises that part of the 
territory of the former colony of German East Africa situated to the west of 
the following line : 

18 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 704. 



68 MANDATE, KUANDA-UEUNDI 

From the point where the frontier between the Uganda Protectorate and 
German East Africa cuts the River Mavumba, a straight line in a south- 
easterly direction to point 1640, about 15 kilometres south-south-west of Mount 
Gabiro ; 

Thence a straight line in a southerly direction to the north shore of Lake 
Mohazi, where it terminates at the confluence of a river situated about 2% 
kilometres west of the confluence of the River Msilala ; 

If the trace of the railway on the west of the River Kagera between Bugufi 
and Uganda approaches within 16 kilometres of the line defined above, the 
boundary will be carried to the west, following a minimum distance of 16 
kilometres from the trace, without, however, passing to the west of the straight 
line joining the terminal point on Lake Mohazi and the top of Mount Kivisa 
(point 2100), situated on the Uganda-German East Africa frontier about 5 
kilometres southwest of the point where the River Mavumba cuts this frontier ; 

Thence a line south-eastwards to meet the southern shore of Lake Mohazi; 

Thence the watershed between the Taruka and the Mkarange rivers and 
continuing southwards to the north-eastern end of Lake Mugesera ; 

Thence the median line of this lake and continuing southwards across Lake 
Ssake to meet the Kagera ; 

Thence the course of the Kagera downstream to meet the western boundary 
of Bugufi ; 

Thence this boundary to its junction with the eastern boundary of Urundi ; 

Thence the eastern and southern boundary of Urundi to Lake Tanganyika. 

The frontier described above is shown on the attached British 1 : 1.000.000 
map G. S. G. S. 2932. The boundaries of Bugufi and Urundi are drawn as 
shown in the Deutscher Kolonial-atlas (Dietrich-Reimer) scale 1 : 1.000.000 
dated 1906. 2 

Article 2 

A boundary commission shall be appointed by His Majesty the King of the 
Belgians and His Britannic Majesty to trace on the spot the line described in 
Article 1 above. 

In case any dispute should arise in connection with the work of these com- 
missioners, the question shall be referred to the Council of the League of 
Nations, whose decision shall be final. 

The final report by the boundary commission shall give the precise descrip- 
tion of this boundary as actually demarcated on the ground ; the necessary 
maps shall be annexed thereto and signed by the commissioners. The report, 
with its annexes, shall be made in triplicate ; one copy shall be deposited in 
the archives of the League of Nations, one shall be kept by the Government 
of His Majesty the King of the Belgians and one by the Government of His 
Britannic Majesty. 

Article 3 

The Mandatory shall be responsible for the peace, order and good government 
of the territory, and shall undertake to promote to the utmost the material and 
moral well-being and the social progress of its inhabitants. 

Article 4 

The Mandatory shall not establish any military or naval bases, nor erect 
any fortifications, nor organize any native military force in the territory except 
for local police purposes and for the defence of the territory. 



TEEMS 69 

Article 5 
The Mandatory : 

(1) shall provide for the eventual emancipation of all slaves, and for as 
speedy an elimination of domestic and other slavery as social conditions will 
allow ; 

(2) shall suppress all forms of slave trade; 

(3) shall prohibit all forms of forced or compulsory labor, except for public 
works and essential services, and then only in return for adequate remu- 
neration ; 

(4) shall protect the natives from measures of fraud and force by the careful 
supervision of labor contracts and the recruiting of labor ; 

(5) shall exercise a strict control over the traffic in arms and ammunition 
and the sale of spirituous liquors. 

Article 6 

In the framing of laws relating to the holding or transfer of land, the 
Mandatory shall take into consideration native laws and customs, and shall 
respect the rights and safeguard the interests of the native population. 

No native land may be transferred, except between natives, without the 
previous consent of the public authorities. No real rights over native land in 
favor of non-natives may be created except with the same consent. 

The Mandatory will promulgate strict regulations against usury. 

Article 7 

The Mandatory shall secure to all nationals of states members of the League 
of Nations the same rights as are enjoyed by his own nationals in respect of 
entry into and residence in the territory, the protection afforded to their per- 
son and property, the acquisition of property, movable and immovable, and the 
exercise of their profession or trade, subject only to the requirements of public 
order, and on condition of compliance with the local law. 

Further, the Mandatory shall ensure to all nationals of states members of the 
League of Nations, on the same footing as to his own nationals, freedom of 
transit and navigation, and complete economic, commercial and industrial 
equality ; provided that the Mandatory shall be free to organize public works 
and essential services on such terms and conditions as he thinks just. 

Concessions for the development of the natural resources of the territory 
shall be granted by the Mandatory without distinction on grounds of nation- 
ality between the nationals of all states members of the League of Nations, 
but on such conditions as will maintain intact the authority of the local 
government. 

Concessions having the character of a general monopoly shall not be granted. 
This provision does not affect the right of the Mandatory to create monopo- 
lies of a purely fiscal character in the interest of the territory under man- 
date, and in order to provide the territory with fiscal resources which seem 
best suited to the local requirements; or, in certain cases, to carry out the 
development of natural resources, either directly by the State, or by a 
controlled agency, provided that there shall result therefrom no monopoly 
of the natural resources for the benefit of the Mandatory or his nationals, 
directly or indirectly, nor any preferential advantage which shall be in- 
consistent with the economic, commercial and industrial equality herein- 
before guaranteed. 

The rights conferred by this article extend equally to companies and asso- 
ciations organized in accordance with the law of any of -the members of the 



70 MANDATE, RUANDA-URUNDI 

League of Nations, subject only to the requirements of public order, and on 
condition of compliance with the local law. 

Article 8 

The Mandatory shall ensure in the territory complete freedom of conscience 
and the free exercise of all forms of worship which are consonant with public 
order and morality ; missionaries who are nationals of states members of the 
League of Nations shall be free to enter the territory and to travel and reside 
therein, to acquire and possess property, to erect religious buildings and to 
open schools throughout the territory ; it being understood, however, that the 
Mandatory shall have the right to exercise such control as may be necessary 
for the maintenance of public order and good government, and to take all 
measures required for such control. 

Article 9 

The Mandatory shall apply to the territory any general international con- 
ventions applicable to contiguous territories. 

Article 10 

The Mandatory shall have full powers of administration and legislation in 
the area subject to the mandate : this area shall be administered in accordance 
with the laws of the Mandatory as an integral part of his territory and sub- 
ject to the preceding provisions. 

The Mandatory shall therefore be at liberty to apply his laws to the terri- 
tory under the mandate subject to the modifications required by local con- 
ditions, and to constitute the territory into a customs, fiscal or administra- 
tive union or federation with the adjacent possessions under his own sover- 
eignty or control ; provided always that the measures adopted to that end do 
not infringe the provisions of this mandate. 

Article 11 

The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an 
annual report to the satisfaction of the Council. This report shall contain 
full information concerning the measures taken to apply the provisions of the 
present mandate. 

Article 12 

The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any 
modification of the terms of this mandate. 

Article 13 

The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between 
the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations relating to the 
interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dis- 
pute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Perma- 
nant Court of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant 
of the League of Nations. 

Whereas the United States of America by participating in the 
war against Germany contributed to her defeat and to the renun- 
ciation of her rights and titles over her oversea possessions, but has 
not ratified the Treaty of Versailles ; and 



CONVENTION OF UNITED STATES AND BELGIUM 71 

Whereas the Government of the United States and the Govern- 
ment of the King of the Belgians desire to reach a definite under- 
standing with regard to the rights of the two governments and 
their respective nationals in the aforesaid former Colony of Ger- 
man East Africa under mandate to the King of the Belgians ; 

The President of the United States of America and His Majesty 
the King of the Belgians have decided to conclude a convention to 
this effect and have nominated as their plenipotentiaries : 

His Excellency the President of the United States of America, Mr. 
Benjamin Thaw, Junior, charge d'affairs ad interim of the United 
States of America at Brussels, and 

His Majesty the King of the Belgians: Monsieur Henri Jaspar, 
his Minister for Foreign Affairs, 

Who, after having communicated to each other their full powers, 
found in good and due form, have agreed on the following pro- 
visions : 

Article 1 

Subject to the provisions of the present convention, the United 
States consents to the administration by the Government of the King 
of the Belgians, pursuant to the aforesaid mandate, of the former 
German territory, described in Article 1 of the mandate. 

Article 2 

The United States and its nationals shall have and enjoy all the 
rights and benefits secured under the terms of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 
8, 9, and 10 of the mandate to members of the League of Nations 
and their nationals, notwithstanding the fact that the United States 
is not a member of the League of Nations. 

Article 3 

Vested American property rights in the mandated territory shall 
be respected and in no way impaired. 

Article 4 

A duplicate of the annual report to be made by the mandatory 
under Article 11 of the mandate shall be furnished to the United 
States. 

Article 5 

Nothing contained in the present convention shall be affected by 
any modification which may be made in the terms of the mandate as 
recited above unless such modification shall have been assented to by 
the United States. 



72 mandate, ruanda-urundi 

Article 6 

The extradition treaties and conventions in force between the 
United States and Belgium shall apply to the mandated territory. 

Article 7 

The present convention shall be ratified in accordance with the re- 
spective constitutional methods of the high contracting parties. The 
ratifications shall be exchanged in Brussels as soon as practicable. 
It shall take effect on the date of the exchange of ratifications. 

In witness whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present treaty and have affixed thereto the seal of their arms. 
Done in duplicate at Brussels, this 18th day of April 1923. 

[seal] Benjamin Thaw, Jr. 
[seal] Henri Jaspar. 

PROTOCOL 

Whereas, the boundary of the mandate conferred upon His 
Majesty the King of the Belgians over the territory of Euanda- 
Urundi and recited in the preamble of the treaty concerning the 
mandate concluded between the United States of America and 
Belgium on April 18, 1923, has been modified by a common accord 
between the British and Belgian Governments with the approval 
given by the Council of the League of Nations at its meeting of the 
31 of August, 1923, in order better to safeguard the interests of 
the native populations ; and, 

Whereas, by Article V of the treaty referred to above nothing 
contained in the treaty shall be affected by any modification which 
may be made in the terms of the mandate as recited in the treaty 
unless such modification shall have been assented to by the United 
States of America; and, 

Whereas, the Government of the United States of America per- 
ceives no objection to the modification in question, 

The Governments of the United States of America and Belgium 
have resolved to amend the treaty signed on April 18, 1923, between 
the two countries and have named for this purpose their respective 
plenipotentiaries 

The President of the United States of America, 

Mr. Henry P. Fletcher, Ambassador of the United States of 
America at Brussels, 

His Majesty the King of the Belgians, 

Mr. Henri Jaspar, his Minister of Foreign Affairs; 

Who, after having communicated each to the other their full powers 
found in good and due form, have agreed to the following amenda- 
tory articles to be taken as part of the treaty signed April 18, 1923 : 



RATIFICATION PROVISIONS 73 

Article 1 

Article 1 of the mandate recited in the preamble of the treaty 
signed April 18, 1923, shall be replaced by the following : 

"The territory over which a mandate is conferred upon His 
Majesty the King of the Belgians (hereinafter called the Manda- 
tory) comprises that part of the territory of the former colony of 
German East Africa situated to the west of the following line : 

" The mid-stream of the Kagera Kiver from the Uganda boundary 
to the point where the Kagera River meets the western boundary of 
Bugufi, thence this boundary to its junction with the eastern bound- 
ary of Urundi, thence the eastern and southern boundary of Urundi 
to Lake Tanganyka. 

"The frontier described above is shown on the attached British 
map GSGS Number 2932-A, on the scale of 1 :1.000.000." 2 

Article 2 

The present protocol shall be ratified in accordance with the con- 
stitutional methods of the high contracting parties. The ratifica- 
tions shall be exchanged in Brussels on the same day as those of the 
treaty of April 18, 1923. It shall take effect on the date of exchange 
of ratifications. 

In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the 
present protocol and have affixed thereto the seal of their arms. 

Done in duplicate at Brussels, this twenty-first day of January, 
one thousand nine hundred and twenty- four. 

[seal] Henry P. Fletcher. 
[seal] Henri Jaspar. 

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND JAPAN u REGARD- 
ING RIGHTS OF THE TWO GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR RESPEC- 
TIVE NATIONALS IN FORMER GERMAN ISLANDS IN THE PACIFIC 
OCEAN NORTH OF THE EQUATOR, AND IN PARTICULAR THE 
ISLAND OF YAP 

[Signed at Washington, February 11, 1922 ; ratification advised by the Senate, March 1, 
1922; ratified by the President, June 2, 1922; ratified by Japan, June 23, 1922; 
ratifications exchanged at Washington, July 13, 1922 ; proclaimed, July 13, 1922] 

By the President of the United States of America 

A PEOCLAMATION 

Whereas a Convention between the United States of America and 
Japan with regard to the rights of the two Governments and their 

2 The maps attached to the original treaty and protocol are not here reproduced. 
14 TJ. S. Series, No. 664. 



74 TREATY, NORTH PACIFIC GERMAN ISLANDS 

respective nationals in the former German Islands in the Pacific 
Ocean, lying north of the Equator, in particular the Island of Yap, 
was concluded and signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries at 
Washington, on the eleventh of February, one thousand nine hundred 
and twenty-two, the original of which Convention is word for word 
; as follows : 

The United States of America and Japan; 

Considering that by Article 119 of the Treaty of Versailles, signed 
on June 28, 1919, Germany renounced in favor of the Powers de- 
scribed in that Treaty as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, 
to wit, the United States of America, the British Empire, France, 
Italy and Japan, all her rights and titles over her oversea possessions ; 

Considering that the benefits accruing to the United States under 
the aforesaid Article 119 of the Treaty of Versailles were confirmed 
by the Treaty between the United States and Germany, signed on 
August 25, 1921, to restore friendly relations between the two 
nations ; 

Considering that the said four Powers, to wit, the British Empire, 
France, Italy and Japan, have agreed to confer upon His Majesty 
the Emperor of Japan a mandate, pursuant to the Treaty of Ver- 
sailles, to administer the groups of the former German Islands in 
-the Pacific Ocean lying north of the Equator, in accordance with the 
following provisions : 

Article 1. The islands over which a mandate is conferred upon His Majesty 
the Emperor of Japan (hereinafter called the Mandatory) comprise all the 
former German islands situated in the Pacific Ocean and lying north of the 
Equator. 

Article 2. The Mandatory shall have full power of administration and legis- 
lation over the territory subject to the present Mandate as an integral portion 
jof the Empire of Japan, and may apply the laws of the Empire of Japan to 
the territory, subject to such local modifications as circumstances may require. 

The Mandatory shall promote to the utmost the material and moral well- 
being and the social progress of the inhabitants of the territory subject to the 
present Mandate. 

Article 3. The Mandatory shall see that the slave trade is prohibited and 
that no forced labour is permitted, except for essential public works and serv- 
ices, and then only for adequate remuneration. 

The Mandatory shall also see that the traffic in arms and ammunition is con- 
trolled in accordance with principles analogous to those laid down in the 
Convention relating to the control of the arms traffiffic, signed on September 
10th, 1919, or in any convention amending same. 

The supply of intoxicating spirits and beverages to the natives shall be pro- 
hibited. 

Article 4. The military training of the natives, otherwise than for purposes 
of internal police and the local defence of the territory, shall be prohibited. 
Furthermore, no military or naval bases shall be established or fortifications 
erected in the territory. 



MANDATE TEEMS 75 

Article 5. Subject to the provisions of any local law for the maintenance of 
public order and public morals, the Mandatory shall ensure in the territory 
freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, and shall 
allow all missionaries, nationals of any State Member of the League of Na- 
tions, to enter into, travel and reside in the territory for the purpose of prose- 
cuting their calling. 

Article 6. The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations 
an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council, containing full information 
with regard to the territory, and indicating the measures taken to carry out 
the obligations assumed under Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

Article 7. The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required 
for any modification of the terms of the present mandate. 

The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between the 
Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations relating to the inter- 
pretation or the application of the provisions of the Mandate, such dispute, if 
it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court 
of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the 
League of Nations ; 

Considering that the United States did not ratify the Treaty of 
Versailles and did not participate in the agreement respecting the 
aforesaid Mandate; 

Desiring to reach a definite understanding with regard to the 
rights of the two Governments and their respective nationals in 
the aforesaid islands, and in particular the Island of Yap, have 
resolved to conclude a convention for that purpose and to that end 
have named as their Plenipotentiaries : 

The President of the United States of America: Charles Evans 
Hughes, Secretary of State of the United States ; and 

His Majesty the Emperor of Japan: Baron Kijuro Shidehara, His 
Majesty's Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary at Wash- 
ington ; 

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective 
full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed as 
follows : 

Article I 

Subject to the provisions of the present Convention, the United 
States consents to the administration by Japan, pursuant to the 
aforesaid Mandate, of all the former German Islands in the Pacific 
Ocean, lying north of the Equator. 

Article II 

The United States and its nationals shall receive all the benefits 
of the engagements of Japan, defined in Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the 
aforesaid Mandate, notwithstanding the fact that the United States 
is not a Member of the League of Nations. 

It is further agreed between the High Contracting Parties as 
follows : 



76 TREATY, NORTH PACIFIC GERMAN ISLANDS 

(1) Japan shall insure in the islands complete freedom of con- 
science and the free exercise of all forms of worship which are con- 
sonant with public order and morality; American missionaries of 
all such religions shall be free to enter the islands and to travel and 
reside therein, to acquire and possess property, to erect religious 
buildings and to open schools throughout the islands ; it being under- 
stood, however, that Japan shall have the right to exercise such 
control as may be necessary for the maintenance of public order 
and good government and to take all measures required for such 
control. 

(2) Vested American property rights in the mandated islands 
shall be respected and in no way impaired ; 

(3) Existing treaties between the United States and Japan shall 
be applicable to the mandated islands ; 

(4) Japan will address to the United States a duplicate of the 
annual report on the administration of the Mandate to be made by 
Japan to the Council of the League of Nations ; 

(5) Nothing contained in the present Convention shall be affected 
by any modification which may be made in the terms of the Man- 
date as recited in the Convention, unless such modification shall have 
been expressly assented to by the United States. 

Article III 

The United States and its nationals shall have free access to the 
Island of Yap on a footing of entire equality with Japan or any 
other nation and their respective nationals in all that relates to the 
landing and operation of the existing Yap-Guam cable or of any 
cable which may hereafter be laid or operated by the United States 
or by its nationals connecting with the Island of Yap. 

The rights and privileges embraced by the preceding paragraph 
shall also be accorded to the Government of the United States and 
its nationals with respect to radio-telegraphic communication; pro- 
vided, however, that so long as the Government of Japan shall main- 
tain on the Island of Yap an adequate radio-telegraphic station, 
cooperating effectively with the cables and with other radio stations 
on ships or on shore, without discriminatory exactions or prefer- 
ences, the exercise of the right to establish radio-telegraphic stations 
on the Island by the United States or its nationals shall be suspended. 

Article IV 

In connection with the rights embraced by Article III, specific 
rights, privileges and exemptions, in so far as they relate to electrical 
communications, shall be enjoyed in the Island of Yap by the United 
States and its nationals in terms as follows : 



AMERICAN RIGHTS IN ISLANDS 77 

(1) Nationals of the United States shall have the unrestricted 
right to reside in the Island, and the United States and its nationals 
shall have the right to acquire and hold on a footing of entire 
equality with Japan or any other nation or their respective nationals 
all kinds of property and interests, both personal and real, including 
lands, buildings, residences, offices, works and appurtenances. 

(2) Nationals of the United States shall not be obliged to obtain 
any permit or license in order to be entitled to land and operate 
cables on the Island, or to establish radio-telegraphic service, subject 
to the provisions of Article III, or to enjoy any of the rights and 
privileges embraced by this Article and by Article III. 

(3) No censorship or supervision shall be exercised over cable or 
radio messages or operations. 

(4) Nationals of the United States shall have complete freedom 
of entry and exit in the Island for their persons and property. 

(5) No taxes, port, harbour, or landing charges or exactions of 
any nature whatsoever, shall be levied either with respect to the 
operation of cables or radio stations, or with respect to property, 
persons or vessels. 

(6) No discriminatory police regulations shall be enforced. 

(7) The Government of Japan will exercise its power of expro- 
priation in the Island to secure to the United States or its nationals 
needed property and facilities for the purpose of electrical communi- 
cations if such property or facilities cannot otherwise be obtained. 

It is understood that the location and the area of land so to be 
expropriated shall be arranged between the two Governments ac- 
cording to the requirements of each case. Property of the United 
States or of its nationals and facilities for the purpose of electrical 
communication in the Island shall not be subject to expropriation. 

Article V 

The present Convention shall be ratified by the High Contracting 
Parties in accordance with their respective constitutions. The rati- 
fication of this Convention shall be exchanged in Washington as 
soon as practicable, and it shall take effect on the date of the ex- 
change of the ratifications. 

In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed 
this Convention and have hereunto affixed their seals. 

Done in duplicate at the City of Washington, this eleventh day of 
February, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two. 

Charles Evans Hughes [seal.] 
K. Shidehara [seal.] 

And whereas the said Convention, has been duly ratified on both 
parts, and the ratifications of the two governments were exchanged 



78 TREATY, NORTH PACIFIC GERMAN ISLANDS 

in the City of Washington, on the thirteenth day of July, one thou- 
sand nine hundred and twenty-two ; 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Warren G. Harding, President 
of the United States of America, have caused the said Convention 
to be made public, to the end that the same and every article and 
clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the 
United States and the citizens thereof. 

In testimon}^ whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
the seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this thirteenth day of July, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two, 
and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and 
forty-seventh. 

[seal.] Warren G Harding 

By the President: 

Charles E. Hughes 

Secretary of State. 

[exchanges of notes] 
[The Japanese Ambassador to the Secretary of State'] 

Japanese Embassy, 

Washington, February 11, 1922. 

Sir : In proceeding this day to the signature of the Convention be- 
tween Japan and the United States with respect to the islands, under 
Japan's Mandate, situated in the Pacific Ocean and lying north of 
the Equator, I have the honor to assure you, under authorization of 
my Government, that the usual comity will be extended to nationals 
and vessels of the United States in visiting the harbors and waters 
of those islands. 

Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration 

K. Shidehara. 

Honorable Charles E. Hughes, 

Secretary of State. 



[The Secretary of State to the Japanese Ambassador] 

Department or State, 
Washington, February 11, 1922. 

Excellency : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Your 
Excellency's Note under date of February 11, 1922, stating that the 
Japanese Government are quite willing to extend to American na- 



SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS 79 

tionals and vessels the usual comity in visiting the harbors and 
waters of the Japanese mandated islands. 

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consid- 
eration. 

Charles E. Hughes 
His Excellency 

Baron Kijuro Shidehara, 

Ambassador of Japan. 



[Th> Secretary of State to the Japanese Ambassador] 

Department or State, 
Washington, February 11, 1922. 

Excellency : In proceeding this day to the signature of the Con- 
vention between the United States and Japan with respect to former 
German Possessions under a Mandate to Japan, I have the honor to 
state that if in the future the Government of the United States 
should have occasion to make any commercial treaties applicable to-- 
Australia and New Zealand, it will seek to obtain an extension of 
such treaties to the mandated islands south of the Equator, now un- 
der the Administration of those Dominions. I should add that the 
Government of the United States has not yet entered into a conven- 
tion for the giving of its' consent to the Mandate with respect to these 1 
islands. 

I have the honor further to state that it is the intention of the 
Government of the United States, in making conventions, relating to 
former German territories under mandate, to request that the gov- 
ernments holding mandates should address to the United States, as 
one of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, duplicates of the 
annual reports of the administration of their mandates. 

Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest consid- 
eration. 

Charles E. Hughes 

His Excellency 

Baron Kijuro Shidehara, 

Ambassador of Japan. 



[The Japanese Ambassador to the Secretary of State] 

Japanese Embassy, 
Washington, February 11, 1922. 
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of 
this date, stating that if in the future the Government of the United 



"80 MANDATE FOR NAURU 

States should have occasion to make any commercial treaties appli- 
cable to Australia and New Zealand, it will seek to obtain an exten- 
sion of such treaties to the islands south of the Equator, under the 
mandate of Australia and New Zealand, and further that it is the 
intention of the Government of the United States, in making here- 
after conventions relating to former German territories under man- 
date, to request that the Mandatories should address to the United 
States, as one of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, dupli- 
cates of the annual reports on the administration of such mandated 
territories. 

In taking note of your communication under acknowledgment, I 
beg you, Sir, to accept the renewed assurances of my highest consid- 
eration. 

K. Shidehara. 

Honorable Charles E. Hughes, 

Secretary of State. 

MANDATE FOR NAURU 15 

The Council of the League of Nations : 

Whereas, by Article 119 of the treaty of peace with Germany 
signed at Versailles on June 28, 1919, Germany renounced in favor 
of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights over 
her overseas possessions, including therein Nauru; and 

Whereas the Principal Allied and Associated Powers agreed that, 
in accordance with Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of 
Nations) of the said treaty a mandate should be conferred upon His 
Britannic Majesty to administer Nauru, and have proposed that the 
mandate should be formulated in the following terms ; and 

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has agreed to accept a mandate 
in respect of Nauru and has undertaken to exercise it on behalf of 
the League of Nations in accordance with the following provisions; 
and 

Whereas by the aforementioned Article 22, paragraph 8, it is pro- 
vided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be 
exercised by the Mandatory not having been previously agreed upon 
by the members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the 
Council of the League of Nations ; 

Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows: 

Article 1 

The territory over which a mandate is conferred upon His Britan- 
nic Majesty (hereinafter called the Mandatory) is the former Ger- 

15 League of Nations Official Journal, Jan.-Feb. 1921, p. 93. The United States has not 
ratified a treaty in regard to Nauru. 



TERMS 81 

man island of Naura (Pleasant Island, situated in about 167° longi- 
tude East and 0° 25' latitude South). 

Article 2 

The Mandatory shall have full power of administration and leg- 
islation over the territory subject to the present mandate as an 
integral portion of his territory. 

The Mandatory shall promote to the utmost the material and 
moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants of the 
territory subject to the present mandate. 

Article 3 

The Mandatory shall see that the slave trade is prohibited, and 
that no forced labor is permitted, except for essential public worte 
and services, and then only for adequate remuneration. 

The Mandatory shall also see that the traffic in arms and ammuni- 
tion is controlled in accordance with principles analogous to those 
laid down in the convention relating to the control of the arms 
traffic, signed on September 10, 1919, or in any convention amend- 
ing the same. 

The supply of intoxicating spirits and beverages to the natives; 
shall be prohibited. 

Article 4 

The military training of the natives, otherwise than for purposes 
6i internal police and the local defense of the territory, shall be 
prohibited. Furthermore, no militia or naval bases shall be estab- 
lished or fortification erected in the territory. 

Article 5. 

Subject to the provisions of any local law for the maintenance of 
public order and public morals, the Mandatory shall ensure in the 
territory freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms 
of worship, and shall allow all missionaries, nationals of any state 
member of the League of Nations, to enter into, travel and reside 
in the territory for the purpose of prosecuting their calling. 

Article 6 

The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Na- 
tions an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council, containing 
full information with regard to the territory, and indicating the- 
measures taken to carry out the obligations assumed under Articles 
2, 3, 4 and 5. 



82 japanese declaration as to " c " mandate 

Article 7 

The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required 
for any modification of the terms of the present mandate. 

The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise be- 
tween the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations 
relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of 
the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall 
be submited to the Permanent Court of International Justice pro- 
vided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. 

The present declaration shall be deposited in the archives of the 
League of Nations. Certified copies shall be forwarded by the 
Secretary-General of the League of Nations* to all Powers signa- 
tories of the treaty of peace with Germany. 

Certified true copy. 

Secretary- General. 

Made at Geneva the 17th day of December, 1920. 

DECLARATION BY THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT RELATING TO 

" C " MANDATES ie 

[Read by Viscount Ishii at the meeting of the Council, December 17, 1920] 

From the fundamental spirit of the League of Nations, and as 
the question of interpretation of the Covenant, His Imperial Japa- 
nese Majesty's Government have a firm conviction in the justice of 
the claim they have hitherto made for the inclusion of a clause 
concerning the assurance of equal opportunities for trade and com- 
merce in " C " mandates. But from the spirit of conciliation and 
cooperation and their reluctance to see the question unsettled any 
longer, they have decided to agree to the issue of the mandate in 
its present form. That decision, however, should not be considered 
as an acquiescence on the part of His Imperial Japanese Majesty's 
Government in the submission of Japanese subjects to a discrimina- 
tory and disadvantageous treatment in the mandated territories; 
nor have they thereby discarded their claim that the rights and in- 
terests enjoyed by Japanese subjects in these territories in the past 
should be fully respected. 

16 League of Nations Official Journal, Jan.-Feb., 1921, p. 95. 



RIGHT TO A FLAG 

DECLARATION RECOGNISING THE RIGHT TO A FLAG OF STATES 

HAVING NO SEA-COAST 17 

[English and French official texts registered on October 8, 1921, with the Secretariat of 

the League of Nations] 

The undersigned, duly authorised for the purpose, declare that 
the States which they represent recognise the flag flown by the ves- 
sels of any State having no sea-coast which are registered at some 
one specified place situated in its territory; such place shall serve 
as the port of registry of such vessels. 

Barcelona, the twentieth day of April nineteen hundred and 
twenty-one, done in a single copy, of which the English and French 
texts shall be authentic. 

(Signature of plenipotentiaries) 



Kingdom o f 


the 


Uruguay 


France 


Serbs, Croates and 


Greece 


China 


Slovenes 




Switzerland 


The Netherlands 


Czecho - Slovak 


Ke- 


Panama 


Spain 


public 




Bolivia 


Lithuania 


Norway 




Latvia 


Persia 


British Empire 




Guatemala 


Denmark 


New Zealand 




Poland 


Chile 


India 




Bulgaria 


Italy 


Esthonia 




Austria 


Portugal 


Albania 




Sweden 




Japan 




Belgium 





"League of Nations Treaty Series, 1921, Vol. VII, p. 74. 



83 



HALIBUT FISHERY 

CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRIT- 
AIN 18 FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE HALIBUT FISHERY OF 
THE NORTHERN PACIFIC OCEAN, INCLUDING BERING SEA 

[Signed at Washington, March 2, 1923 ; ratification advised by the Senate, May 31, 1924 ; 
ratified by the President, June 4, 1924 ; ratified by Great Britain, July 21, 1924 ; rati- 
fications exchanged at Washington, October 21, 1924; proclaimed, October 22, 1924] 

By the President of the United States of America 
A PROCLAMATION 

Whereas a Convention between the United States of America 
and Great Britain for the preservation of the halibut fishery of the 
Northern Pacific Ocean, including Bering Sea, was concluded and 
signed by their respective Plenipotentiaries at Washington on the 
second day of March, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three, 
the original of which is word for word as follows : 

The United States of America and His Majesty the King of the 
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British 
Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, being equally desir- 
ous of securing the preservation of the halibut fishery of the North- 
ern Pacific Ocean have resolved to conclude a Convention for this 
purpose, and have named as their plenipotentiaries : 

The President of the United States of America: Charles Evans 
Hughes, Secretary of State of the United States ; and 

His Britannic Majesty: The Honorable Ernest Lapointe, K. O, 
B. A., LL. B., Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada; 

Who, after having communicated to each other their respective 
full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the 
following articles : 

Article I 

The nationals and inhabitants and the fishing vessels and boats r 
of the United States and of the Dominion of Canada, respectively,, 
are hereby prohibited from fishing for halibut (Hippoglossus) both 
in the territorial waters and in the high seas off the western coasts 
of the United States, including Bering Sea, and of the Dominion of 
Canada, from the 16th day of November next after the date of the 

18 U. S. Treaty Series, No., 701. 
84 



FISHERY JURISDICTION 85 

exchange of ratifications of this Convention, to the 15th day of the 
following February, both days inclusive, and within the same period 
yearly thereafter, provided that upon the recommendation of the 
International Fisheries Commission hereinafter described, this close 
season may be modified or suspended at any time after the expiration 
of three such seasons, by a special agreement concluded and duly 
ratified by the High Contracting Parties. 

It is understood that nothing contained in this Article shall pro- 
hibit the nationals or inhabitants and the fishing vessels or boats 
of the United States and of the Dominion of Canada, from fishing 
in the waters hereinbefore specified for other species of fish during 
the season when fishing for halibut in such waters is prohibited by 
this Article. Any halibut that may be taken incidentally when 
fishing for other fish during the season when fishing for halibut is 
prohibited under the provisions of this Article may be retained and 
used for food for the crew of the vessel by which they are taken. 
Any portion thereof not so used shall be landed and immediately 
turned over to the duly authorized officers of the Department of 
Commerce of the United States or of the Department of Marine and 
Fisheries of the Dominion of Canada. Any fish turned over to such 
officers in pursuance of the provisions of this Article shall be sold 
by them to the highest bidder and the proceeds of such sale, exclu- 
sive of the necessary expenses in connection therewith, shall be paid 
by them into the treasuries of their respective countries. 

Article II 

Every national or inhabitant, vessel or boat of the United States 
or of the Dominion of Canada engaged in halibut fishing in viola- 
tion of the preceding Article may be seized except within the juris- 
diction of the other party by the duly authorized officers of either 
High Contracting Party and detained by the officers making such 
seizure and delivered as soon as practicable to an authorized official 
of the country to which such person, vessel or boat belongs, at the 
nearest point to the place of seizure, or elsewhere, as may be 
mutually agreed upon. The authorities of the nation to which such 
person, vessel or boat belongs alone shall have jurisdiction to con- 
duct prosecutions for the violation of the provisions of the preced- 
ing Article or of the laws or regulations which either High Con- 
tracting Party may make to carry those provisions into effect, and 
to impose penalties for such violations ; and the witnesses and proofs 
necessary for such prosecutions, so far as such witnesses or proofs 
are under the control of the other High Contracting Party, shall 
t>e furnished with all reasonable promptitude to the authorities 
having jurisdiction to conduct the prosecutions. 



86 HALIBUT FISHERY CONVENTION 

Article III 

The High Contracting Parties agree to appoint within two months 
after the exchange of ratifications of this Convention, a Commission 
to be known as the International Fisheries Commission, consisting 
of four members, two to be appointed by each party. This Commis- 
sion shall continue to exist so long as this Convention shall remain 
in force. Each party shall pay the salaries and expenses of its own 
members, and joint expenses incurred by the Commission shall be 
paid by the two High Contracting Parties in equal moieties. 

The Commission shall make a thorough investigation into the life 
history of the Pacific halibut and such investigation shall be under- 
taken as soon as practicable. The Commission shall report the re- 
sults of its investigation to the two Governments and shall make 
recommendations as to the regulation of the halibut fishery of the 
North Pacific Ocean, including the Bering Sea, which may seem to 
be desirable for its preservation and development. 

Article IV 

The High Contracting Parties agree to enact and enforce such 
legislation as may be necessar}^ to make effective the provisions of 
this Convention with appropriate penalties for violations thereof. 

Article V 

This Convention shall remain in force for a period of five years 
and thereafter until two years from the date when either of the 
High Contracting Parties shall give notice to the other of its desire 
to terminate it. It shall be ratified in accordance with the constitu- 
tional methods of the High Contracting Parties. The ratifications 
shall be exchanged in Washington as soon as practicable, and the 
Convention shall come into force on the day of the exchange of 
ratifications. 

In faith whereof, the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the 
present Convention in duplicate, and have thereunto affixed their 
seals. 

Done at the City of Washington, the second day of March, in 
the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-three. 

Charles Evans Hughes [seal.] 
Ernest Lapointe [seal.] 

And whereas the said Convention has been duly ratified on 
both parts, and the ratifications of the two Governments were ex- 
changed in the city of Washington on the twenty-first day of Octo- 
ber, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four; 



PROCLAMATION 87 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Calvin Coolidge, President 
of the United States of America, have caused the said Convention 
to be made public, to the end that the same and every article and 
clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by 
the United States and the citizens thereof. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
the seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this twenty-second day of Octo- 
ber, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty- 
four, and of the Independence of the United States of America 
the one hundred and forty-ninth. 

[seal.] Calvin Coolidge. 

By the President : 

Charles E. Hughes 

Secretary of State. 



SMUGGLING OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS 

CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT 
BRITAIN 19 — PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING OF INTOXICATING 
LIQUORS 

[Signed at Washington, January 23, 1924; ratification advised by the Senate, March 13, 
1924 ; ratified by the President, March 21, 1924 ; ratified by Great Britain, April 30, 
1924 ; ratifications exchanged at Washington, May 22, 1924 ; proclaimed, May 22, 1924] 

By the President of the United States of America 
A PROCLAMATION 

"Whereas a Convention between the United States of America 
.and Great Britain to aid in the prevention of the smuggling of in- 
toxicating liquors into the United States was concluded and signed 
by their respective Plenipotentiaries at Washington, on the twenty- 
third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, 
the original of which Convention is word for word as follows : 

The President of the United States of America ; 

And His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, 
Emperor of India; 

Being desirous of avoiding any difficulties which might arise 
between them in connection with the laws in force in the United 
States on the subject of alcoholic beverages ; 

Have decided to conclude a Convention for that purpose; 

And have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries: 

The President of the United States of America : 

Charles Evans Hughes, Secretary of State of the United States; 

His 'Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain 
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Em- 
peror of India : 

The Right Honorable Sir Auckland Campbell Geddes, G. C. M. G., 
K. C. B., His Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the 
United States of America; 

Who, having communicated their full powers found in good and 
.due form, have agreed as follows: 

Article I 

The High Contracting Parties declare that it is their firm inten- 
tion to uphold the principle that 3 marine miles extending from the 



19 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 685. 
88 



MARITIME SEIZURES 89 

coastline outwards and measured from low-water mark constitute 
the proper limits of territorial waters. 

Article II 

(1) His Britannic Majesty agrees that he will raise no objection 
to the boarding of private vessels under the British flag outside the 
limits of territorial waters by the authorities of the United States, 
its territories or possessions in order that enquiries may be addressed 
to those on board and an examination be made of the ship's papers 
for the purpose of ascertaining whether the vessel or those on board 
are endeavoring to import or have imported alcoholic beverages into 
the United States, its territories or possessions in violation of the 
laws there in force. When such enquiries and examination show a 
reasonable ground for suspicion, a search of the vessel may be insti- 
tuted. 

(2) If there is reasonable cause for belief that the vessel has com- 
mitted or is committing or attempting to commit an offense against 
the laws of the United States, its territories or possessions prohibit- 
ing the importation of alcoholic beverages, the vessel may be seized 
and taken into a port of the United States, its territories or posses- 
sions for adjudication in accordance with such laws. 

(3) The rights conferred by this article shall not be exercised at 
a greater distance from the coast of the United States its territories 
or possessions than can be traversed in one hour by the vessel sus- 
pected of endeavoring to commit the offense. In cases, however, in 
which the liquor is intended to be conveyed to the United States its 
territories or possessions by a vessel other than the one boarded and 
searched, it shall be the speed of such other vessel and not the speed 
of the vessel boarded, which shall determine the distance from the 
coast at which the right under this article can be exercised. 

Article III 

No penalty or forfeiture under the laws of the United States shall 
be applicable or attach to alcoholic liquors or to vessels or persons by 
reason of the carriage of such liquors, when such liquors are listed as 
sea stores or cargo destined for a port foreign to the United States, 
its territories or possessions on board British vessels voyaging to or 
from ports of the United States, or its territories or possessions or 
passing through the territorial waters thereof, and such carriage 
shall be as now provided by law with respect to the transit of such 
liquors through the Panama Canal, provided that such liquors shall 
be kept under seal continuously while the vessel on which they are 
carried remains within said territorial waters and that no part of 
57920—26 7 



90 CONVENTION, SMUGGLING LIQUOKS 

such liquors shall at any time or place be unladen within the United 
States, its territories or possessions. 

Article IV 

Any claim by a British vessel for compensation on the grounds 
that it has suffered loss or injury through the improper or unreason- 
able exercise of the rights conferred by Article II of this Treaty or 
on the ground that it has not been given the benefit of Article III 
shall be referred for the joint consideration of two persons, one of 
whom shall be nominated by each of the High Contracting Parties. 

Effect shall be given to the recommendations contained in any such 
joint report. If no joint report can be agreed upon, the claim shall 
be referred to the Claims Commission established under the provi- 
sions of the Agreement for the Settlement of Outstanding Pecuniary 
Claims signed at Washington the 18th August, 1910, but the claim 
shall not, before submisison to the tribunal, require to be included in 
a schedule of claims confirmed in the manner therein provided. 

Article V 

This Treaty shall be subject to ratification and shall remain in 
force for a period of one year from the date of the exchange of rati- 
fications. 

Three months before the expiration of the said period of one year, 
either of the High Contracting Parties may give notice of its desire 
to propose modifications in the terms of the Treaty. 

If such modifications have not been agreed upon before the ex- 
piration of the term of one year mentioned above, the Treaty shall 
lapse. 

If no notice is given on either side of the desire to propose modifi- 
cations, the Treaty shall remain in force for another year, and so on 
automatically, but subject always in respect of each such period of a 
year to the right on either side to propose as provided above three 
months before its expiration modifications in the Treaty, and to the 
provision that if such modifications are not agreed upon before the 
close of the period of one year, the Treaty shall lapse. 

Article VI 

In the event that either of the High Contracting Parties shall be 
prevented either by judicial decision or legislative action from giv- 
ing full effect to the provisions of the present Treaty the said Treaty 
shall automatically lapse, and, on such lapse or whenever this Treaty 
shall cease to be in force, each High Contracting Party shall enjoy 
all the rights Avhich it would have possessed had this Treaty not been 
concluded. 



PROCLAMATION 91 

The present Convention shall be duly ratified by the President of 
the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent 
of the Senate thereof, and by His Britannic Majesty; and the rati- 
fications shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible. 

In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Convention in duplicate and have thereunto affixed 
their seals. 

Done at the city of Washington this twenty-third day of January, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four. 

[seal.] Charles Evans Hughes 

[seal.] A. C. Geddes 

And whereas the said Convention has been duly ratified on both 
parts, and the ratifications of the two Governments were exchanged 
in the City of Washington on the twenty-second day of May, one 
thousand nine hundred and twenty-four; 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Calvin Coolidge, President 
of the United States of America, have caused the said Convention 
to be made public, to the end that the same and every article and 
clause thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the 
United States and the citizens thereof. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused 
the seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington this twenty-second day of May 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, 
and of the Independence of the United States of America the one 
hundred and forty-eighth. 

[seal.] Calvin Coolidge 

By the President: 

Charles E. Hughes 

Secretary of State, 

CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND PANAMAS- 
PREVENTION OF SMUGGLING OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS 

[Signed at Washington, June 6, 1924 ; ratification advised by the Senate, December 10, 
1924 ; ratified by the President, January 15, 1925 ; ratified by Panama, December 30, 
1924 ; ratifications exchanged at Washington, January 19, 1925 ; proclaimed, January 
19, 1925] 

By the President or the United States of America 
A PROCLAMATION 

Whereas a convention between the United States of America and 
Panama to aid in preventing the smuggling of intoxicating liquors 
into the United States was concluded and signed by their respective 

20 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 707. 



92 CONVENTION, SMUGGLING LIQUORS 

Plenipotentiaries at Washington on the sixth day of June, one 
thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, the original of which con- 
vention, being in the English and Spanish languages, is word for 
word as follows: 

The President of the United States of America and the President 
of the Republic of Panama being desirous of avoiding any difficulties 
which might arise between them in connection with the laws in force 
in the United States on the subject of alcoholic beverages have 
decided to conclude a Convention for that purpose and have ap- 
pointed as their Plenipotentiaries : 

The President of the United States of America, Charles Evans 
Hughes, Secretary of State of the United States of America, and 

The President of Panama, Ricardo J. Alfaro, Envoy Extraor- 
dinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Panama in 
Washington, 

Who, having communicated their full powers found in good and 
due form, have agreed as follows: 

Article I 

The High Contracting Parties declare that it is their firm inten- 
tion to uphold the principle that three marine miles extending from 
the coast line outwards and measured from low-water mark con- 
stitute the proper limits of territorial waters. 

Article II 

(1) The President of Panama agrees that Panama will raise no 
objection to the boarding of private vessels under the Panaman flag 
outside the limits of territorial waters by the authorities of the 
United States, its territories or possessions, in order that enquiries 
may be addressed to those on board and an examination be made of 
the ship's papers* for the purpose of ascertaining whether the vessel 
or those on board are endeavoring to import or have imported alco- 
holic beverages into the United States, its territories or possessions 
in violation of the laws there in force. When such enquiries and 
examinations show a reasonable ground for suspicion, a search of the 
vessel may be initiated. 

(2) If there is reasonable cause for belief that the vessel has com- 
mitted or is committing or attempting to commit an offense against 
the laws of the United States, its territories or possessions prohibiting 
the importation of alcoholic beverages, the vessel may be seized and 
taken into a port of the United States, its territories or possessions 
for adjudication in accordance with such laws. 

(3) The rights conferred by this article shall not be exercised at 
a greater distance from the coast of the United States its territories 



REGULATIONS AS TO PANAMA 93 

or possessions than can be traversed in one hour by the vessel sus- 
pected of endeavoring to commit the offense, and shall not be exer- 
cised in waters adjacent to territorial waters of the Canal Zone. In 
cases, however, in which the liquor is intended to be conveyed to the 
United States its territories or possessions by a vessel other than the 
one boarded and searched, it shall be the speed of such other vessel 
and not the speed of the vessel boarded, which shall determine the 
distance from the coast at which the right under this article can be 
exercised. 

Article III 

No penalty or forfeiture under the laws of the United States shall 
be applicable or attach to alcoholic liquors or to vessels or persons by 
reason of the carriage of such liquors, when such liquors are listed as 
sea stores or cargo destined for a port foreign to the United States, 
its territories or possessions on board Panaman vessels voyaging to 
or from ports of the United States, or its territories or possessions 
or passing through the territorial waters thereof, and such carriage 
shall be as now provided by law with respect to the transit of such 
liquors through the Panama Canal, provided that such liquors shall 
be kept under seal continuously while the vessel on which they are 
carried remains within said territorial waters and that no part of 
such liquors shall at any time or place be unladen within the United 
States, or its territories or possessions. 

Article IV 

Any claim by a Panaman vessel for compensation on the grounds 
that it has suffered loss or injury through the improper or unrea- 
sonable exercise of the rights conferred by Article II of this Treaty 
or on the ground that it has not been given the benefit of Article III 
shall be referred for the joint consideration of two persons, one of 
whom shall be nominated by each of the High Contracting Parties. 

Effect shall be given to the recommendations contained in any such 
joint report. If no joint report can be agreed upon, the claim shall 
be referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague 
described in the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of Inter- 
national Disputes, concluded at The Hague, October 18, 1907. The 
Arbitral Tribunal shall be constituted in accordance with Article 87 
(Chapter IV) and with Article 59 (Chapter III) of the said Con- 
vention. The proceedings shall be regulated by so much of Chapter 
IV of the said Convention and of Chapter III thereof (special re- 
gard being had for Articles 70 and 74, but excepting Articles 53 and 
54) as the Tribunal may consider to be applicable and to be con- 
sistent with the provisions of this agreement. All sums of money 
which may be awarded by the Tribunal on account of any claim 



94 CONVENTION, SMUGGLING LIQUORS 

shall be paid within eighteen months after the date of the final 
award without interest and without deduction, save as hereafter 
specified. Each Government shall bear its own expenses. The ex- 
penses of the Tribunal shall be defrayed by a ratable deduction of 
the amount of the sums awarded by it, at a rate of five per cent, on 
such sums, or at such lower rate as may be agreed upon between the 
two Governments; the deficiency, if any, shall be defrayed in equal 
moieties by the two Governments. 

Article V 

This Treaty shall be subject to ratification and shall remain in 
force for a period of one year from the date of the exchange of 
ratifications. 

Three months before the expiration of the said period of one year, 
either of the High Contracting Parties may give notice of its desire 
to propose modifications in the terms of the Treaty. 

If such modifications have not been agreed upon before the expira- 
tion of the term of one year mentioned above, the Treaty shall lapse. 

If no notice is given on either side of the desire to propose modi- 
fications, the Treaty shall remain in force for another year, and so 
on automatically, but subject always in respect of each such period 
of a year to the right on either side to propose as provided above 
three months before its expiration modifications in the Treaty, and 
to the provision that if such modifications are not agreed upon before 
the close of the period of one year, the Treaty shall lapse. 

Article VI 

In the event that either of the High Contracting Parties shall be 
prevented either by judicial decision or legislative action from giv- 
ing full effect to the provisions of the present Treaty the said Treaty 
shall automatically lapse, and, on such lapse or whenever this Treaty 
shall cease to be in force, each High Contracting Party shall enjoy 
all the rights which it would have possessed had this Treaty not been 
concluded. 

The present Convention shall be duly ratified by the President of 
the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of 
the Senate thereof and by the President of Panama in accordance 
with the requirements of the Panaman Constitution; and the ratifi- 
cations shall be exchanged at Washington as soon as possible. 

In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed 
the present Convention in duplicate and have thereunto affixed their 
seals. 



PROCLAMATION 95 

Done at the city of Washington, this sixth day of June in the 
year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four. 
[seal.] Charles Evans Hughes 

[seal.] R. J. Alfaro 

And whereas the said convention has been duly ratified on both 
parts, and the ratifications of the two Governments were exchanged 
in the city of Washington on the nineteenth day of January, one 
thousand nine hundred and twenty-five; 

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Calvin Coolidge, President of 
the United States of America, have caused the said convention to be 
made public, to the end that the same and every article and clause 
thereof may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United 
States arid the citizens thereof. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the 
seal of the United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this nineteenth day of January, 
in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-five, 
and of the Independence of the United States of America the one 
hundred and forty-ninth. 

[seal.] Calvin Coolidge 

By the President : 

Charles E. Hughes 

Secretary of State. 



RADIO AND AERIAL 21 

COMMISSION OF JURISTS TO CONSIDER AND REPORT UPON THE 
REVISION OF THE RULES OF WARFARE— GENERAL REPORT 

The Conference on the Limitation of Armament at Washington 
adopted at its sixth Plenary Session on the 4th February, 1922, a 
resolution for the appointment of a Commission representing the 
"United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and 
Japan to consider the following questions: — 

(a) Do existing rules of international law adequately cover 

new methods of attack or defence resulting from the 
introduction or development, since The Hague Confer- 
ence of 1907, of new agencies of warfare ? 

(b) If not so, what changes in the existing rules ought to be 

adopted in consequence thereof as a part of the law of 
nations ? 

The Commission was to report its conclusions to each of the 
Powers represented in its membership. 

The Resolution also provided that those Powers should thereupon 
confer as to the acceptance of the report and the course to be fol- 
lowed to secure the consideration of its recommendations by the 
other civilised Powers. 

By a second resolution adopted at the same session it was agreed 
to exclude from the jurisdiction of the Commission the rules or 
declarations relating to submarines and to the use of noxious gases 
and chemicals already adopted by the Powers in the said Conference. 

21 The St. Petersburg International Telegraph Convention of 1875, to which the United 
States never became a party, forms the basis of much subsequent negotiation on tele- 
graph communication. A preliminary conference on wireless telegraph was held in 
1903, and an international convention was drawn up in 1906. The Radiotelegraph 
Convention of 1912, ratified by the United States, elaborated earlier conventions. 
While this convention was negotiated between " The United States of America and the 
Possessions of the United States of America," the ratification by the United States 
included the possessions, "Alaska, Hawaii, and other Possessions in Polynesia, the Philip- 
pine Islands, Porto Rico, and the American Possessions in the Antilles, the Panama 
Canal Zone." 

The World War emphasized the need for further regulations, as by Article 21 of the 
Convention of 1912 naval and military installations were not covered. Many national 
regulations were published during the hostilities, and various degrees of control over 
radio were exercised by neutrals and belligerents. 

The Conference on the Limitation of Armament by resolution voted in 1922 for the 
appointment of a commission of jurists who should consider new agencies of warfare, 
and radio was named as one of these. In earlier conferences, the terms " wireless 
telegraphy," " radio telegraphy," and others had been used, but the term " radio " was 
adopted by the commission as the comprehensive term for radio telegraphy, telephony, 
and goniometry. 

96 



RULES FOR CONTROL OF RADIO IN WAR 97 

With the unanimous concurrence of the Powers mentioned in 
the first of the above resolutions an invitation to participate in the 
work of the Commission was extended to and accepted by the Nether- 
lands Government. It was also agreed that the programme of the 
Commission should be limited to the preparation of rules relating 
to aerial warfare, and to rules relating to the use of radio in time of 
war. 

The United States Government proposed that the Commission 
should meet on the UtliJDe£ember 3 1922, at The Hague, and the 
representatives of the six Powers mentioned above assembled on 
that date in the Palace of Peace. At the second meeting of the Com- 
mission the Honourable John Bassett Moore, First Delegate of the 
United States, was elected President of the Commission. 

The Commission has prepared a set of rules for the control of 
radio in time of war, which are contained in Part I of this Keport, 
and a set of rules for aerial warfare, which are contained in Part 
II of this Report. 

The Commission desires to add that it believes that if these sets 
of rules are approved and brought into force, it will be found 
expedient to make provision for their re-examination after a rela- 
tively brief term of years to see whether any revision is necessary. 

PART I. RULES FOR THE CONTROL OF RADIO IN TIME 

OF WAR 

The regulation of the use of radio in time of war is not a new 
question. Several international conventions already contain pro- 
visions on the subject, but the ever increasing development of this 
means of communication has rendered it necessary that the whole 
matter should be reconsidered, with the object of completing and 
co-ordinating existing texts. This is the more important in view of 
the fact that several of the existing international conventions have 
^ot been ratified by all the Powers. 

The articles of the existing conventions which deal directly or 
indirectly with radio-telegraphy in time of war are as follows : 

The Land War Neutrality Convention (No. V of 1907) prohibits 
in article 3 the erecting of radio stations by belligerents on neutral 
territory and also the use by belligerents of any radio station estab- 
lished on neutral territory before the war for purely military pur- 
poses and not previously opened for the service of public messages. 
Article 5 obliges the neutral Power not to allow any such proceeding 
by a belligerent. 

Under article 8 a neutral Power is not bound to forbid or restrict 
the employment on behalf of belligerents of radio stations belonging 
to it or to companies or private individuals. 

57920—26 8 



98 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

Under article 9 the neutral Power must appry to the belligerents 
impartially the measures taken by it under article 8 and must enforce 
them on private owners of radio stations. 

Article 8 of the Convention for the Adaptation of the Geneva 
Convention to Maritime Warfare (No. X of 1907) provides that the 
presence of a radio installation on board a hospital ship does not of 
itself justify the withdrawal of the protection to which a hospital 
ship is entitled so long as she does not commit acts harmful to the 
enemy. 

Under the Convention concerning Neutral Rights and Duties in 
Maritime Warfare (No. XIII of 1907) belligerents are forbidden, as 
part of the general prohibition of the use of neutral ports and waters 
as a base of naval operations, to erect radio stations therein, and 
under article 25 a neutral Power is bound to exercise such supervision 
as the means at its disposal permit to prevent any violation of this 
provision. 

The unratified Declaration of London of 1909, which was signed 
by the Powers represented in the Naval Conference as embodying 
rules which corresponded in substance with the generally recognised 
principles of international law, specified in articles 45 and 46 certain 
acts in which the use of radio-telegraphy might play an important 
part as acts of unneutral service. Under article 45 a neutral vessel 
was to be liable to condemnation if she was on a voyage specially 
undertaken with a view to the transmission of intelligence in the 
interest of the enemy. Under article 46 a neutral vessel was to be 
condemned and receive the same treatment as would be applicable 
to an enemy merchant vessel if she took a direct part in hostilities 
or was at the time exclusively devoted to the transmission of intel- 
ligence in the interest of the enemy. It should be borne in mind 
that by article 16 of the Rules for Aerial Warfare an aircraft is 
deemed to be engaged in hostilities if in the interests of the enemy 
she transmits intelligence in the course of her flight. 

The following provisions have a bearing on the question of the 
control of radio in time of war, though the conventions relate princi- 
pally to radio in time of peace. These provisions are articles 8, 9 
and 17 of the International Radio-Telegraphic Convention of Lon- 
don of 1912. Of these provisions article 8 stipulates that the working 
of radio-telegraph stations shall be organised as far as possible in 
such a manner as not to disturb the service of other radio stations. 
Article 9 deals with the priorhty and prompt treatment of calls of 
distress. Article 17 renders applicable to radio-telegraphy certain 
provisions of the International Telegraphic Convention of St. Peters- 
burg of 1875. Among the provisions of the Convention of 1875 made 



ORGANIZATION RADIO STATIONS 99 

applicable to radio-telegraphy is article 7, under which the High 
Contracting Parties reserve to themselves the right to stop the trans- 
mission of any private telegram which appears to be dangerous to 
the security of the State or contrary to the laws of the country, to 
public order or to decency. Under article 8, each Government re- 
serves to itself the power to interrupt, either totally or partially, the 
system of the international telegraphs for an indefinite period if it 
thinks necessary, provided that it immediately advises each of the 
other contracting Governments. 

Regard has also been given to the terms of the Convention for the 
safety of life at sea, London, 1914. 

With regard to the radio-telegraphy conventions applicable in 
time of peace, it should be remembered that these have not been 
revised since 1912, and that it is not unlikely that a conference may 
before long be summoned for the purpose of effecting such revision. 

The work of the Commission in framing the following rules for 
the control of radio in time of war has been facilitated by the prepa- 
ration and submission to the Commission on behalf of the American 
Delegation of a draft code of rules. This draft has been used as the 
basis of its work by the Commission. 

The first article which has been adopted cannot be appreciated 
without reference to Article 8 of the Radio-Telegraphic Convention 
of 1912. This latter article enunciates the broad principle that the 
operation of radio stations must be organised as far as possible in 
such a manner as not to disturb the service of other stations of the 
kind. The object of article 1 is to demonstrate that this principle is 
equally to prevail in time of war. Needless to say, it is not to apply 
as between radio stations of opposing belligerents. In the same way 
as in time of peace the general principle cannot be applied absolutely, 
SO also in time of war it can only be observed " as far as possible." 

Article 1 

In time of war the working of radio stations shall continue to be organised, 
as far as possible, in such manner as not to disturb the services of other radio 
stations. This provision does not apply as between the radio stations of op- 
posing belligerents. 

Article IT of the Radio-Telegraphic Convention of 1912 enables 
States to regulate or prohibit the use of radio stations within their 
jurisdiction by rendering applicable to radio-telegraphy certain pro- 
visions of the International Telegraphic Convention of 1875. In 
particular it is articles 7 and 8 of that Convention which enable such 
measures of control or prohibition to be taken. The object of article 
2 is to make it clear that such rights subsist equally in time of war. 



100 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, EADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

Article 2 

Belligerent and neutral Powers may regulate or prohibit the operation of 
radio stations within their jurisdiction. 

The next article is really only an adaptation of articles 3 and 5 
of the Land Warfare Neutrality Convention (No. V of 1907). 
Article 3 (b) of that Convention only prohibits the use of any radio- 
telegraphic installations established by belligerents before the war 
on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes. 
The object of article 3 as now adopted is to prohibit any erection or 
operation by a belligerent Power or its agents of radio stations 
within neutral territory. 

The wording shows that the responsibility of the neutral State 
is affected as well as that of the belligerent State in the case in 
question. The words " personnes a son service " in the French text 
are employed in the same sense as the word " agents " in the English 
text. 

It should be understood that neutral Governments are bound to 
use the means at their disposal to prevent the acts which the article 
is designed to stop. This implies that they will be responsible in any 
serious case of negligence. 

Article 3 

The erection or operation by a belligerent Power or its agents of radio 
stations within neutral jurisdiction constitutes a violation of neutrality on 
the part of such belligerent as well as on the part of the neutral Power which 
permits the erection or operation of such stations. 

Article 4 covers the same ground, so far as concerns radio, as that 
provided for in articles 8 and 9 of Convention V of 1907 mentioned 
above; but while article 8 stipulates that a neutral Power is not 
bound to forbid or restrict the use of wireless installations by a bellig- 
erent, and article 9 relates to the restrictive or preventive measures 
taken by a neutral Power for this purpose, measures which must be 
applied impartially to the belligerents, article 4 imposes on neutral 
Powers the duty of preventing the transmission by radio of any 
information destined for a belligerent concerning military forces or 
military operations. 

This article is a compromise. On one side one Delegation pointed 
out that the 1907 system had stood the test during the Avar when 
neutral Governments had taken under article 9 of the 1907 Conven- 
tion restrictive or preventive measures which were quite satisfactory. 
On the other side it was pointed out that those measures had been 
taken precisely for the purpose of complying with the obligation 
imposed by neutrality, and that it would be well to define this obliga- 
tion so as to help and protect neutral Powers in preventing the 



OBLIGATIONS AS TO USE OF EADIO 101 

violation of their neutrality and thereby reducing the probability of 
their becoming involved in the war. Agreement was reached on the 
basis of a text indicating exactly the character of the messages pro- 
hibited, viz., messages concerning military forces and military 
operations. It is understood that the prohibition would not cover the 
repetition of news which has already become public. 

It has been agreed that the article does not render necessary the 
institution of a censorship in every neutral country in every war. 
The character of the war and the situation of the neutral country 
may render such measures unnecessary. It goes without saying that 
neutral Governments are bound to use the means at their disposal 
to prevent the transmission of the information in question. 

The second paragraph merely reproduces the first paragraph of 
article 9 of the Convention of 1907. The phrase " destined for a 
belligerent " covers all cases where the information is intended to 
reach the belligerent, and not merely messages which are addressed 
to the belligerent. 

Article 4 

A neutral Power is not called upon to restrict or prohibit the use of radio 
stations which are located within its jurisdiction, except so far as may be 
necessary to prevent the transmission of information destined for a belligerent 
concerning military forces or military operations and except as prescribed by 
article 5. 

All restrictive or prohibitive measures taken by a neutral Power shall be 
applied impartially by it to the belligerents. 

The legislation of a large number of Powers, for instance, that of 
the Powers represented in the Commission, already provides for the 
prohibition of the use of radio installations on board vessels within 
their jurisdiction. In harmony with articles 5 and 25 of the Conven- 
tion concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Mari- 
time Warfare (No. XIII of 1907), article 5 enacts the continuance 
of this regime in time of war and makes it obligatory for all mobile 
radio stations. 

Article 5 

Belligerent mobile radio stations are bound within the jurisdiction of a 
neutral State to abstain from all use of their radio apparatus. Neutral Gov- 
ernments are bound to employ the means at their disposal to prevent such use. 

The transmission of military intelligence for the benefit of a 
belligerent constitutes an active participation in hostilities and there- 
fore merchant vessels or private aircraft have no right to commit 
such an act. If they do so they must be content to lose the immunity 
which their non-combatant status should confer. 

The vessel or aircraft concerned renders itself liable to be fired 
upon at the moment when the act is committed and is also liable to 



102 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

capture. In case of capture the vessel or aircraft will, if the facts 
be established, be dealt with in the prize court on the same footing as 
an enemy merchant vessel or enemy private aircraft. Members of 
the crew and passengers, if implicated, are to be regarded as com- 
mitting an act in violation of the laws of war. A neutral vessel or 
aircraft which has been fired upon without adequate justification will 
be entitled to address a demand for compensation to the competent 
authorities. Jurisdiction over such claims might with advantage be 
conferred upon the prize court. 

The second paragraph of the article places neutral merchant 
vessels or neutral aircraft when on or over the high seas in a posi- 
tion Avhich corresponds to that laid down by article 4 for radio 
stations in neutral territory. Such radio stations on land must not 
transmit information destined for a belligerent concerning military 
forces or military operations and the neutral Power must see to it 
that this rule is observed. Mobile radio stations when on or over 
the high seas are not subject to the control of the neutral Govern- 
ment to the same extent as radio stations on land, and consequently 
the rule laid down in this article does not impose any obligations 
on the neutral Government. The neutral mobile radio stations them- 
selves will, however, be subject to the same measure of prohibition 
as the radio stations in neutral territory. They must not transmit 
information of the nature specified which is destined for the 
belligerent. 

The distinction between the acts dealt with in the first and second 
paragraphs is that in the first and graver case it is assumed that the 
merchant vessel or aircraft will have been acting in connivance with 
the enemy. In flagrant cases, as for instance, where the vessel or air- 
craft is found transmitting intelligence as to the movement or 
strength of military forces to an enemy in order to enable the latter 
to shape his movements accordingly, such connivance would be 
presumed. 

The phrase " destined for a belligerent " has the same meaning as 
in article 4. As in the case of article 4, it is understood that the 
prohibition would not cover the repetition of news which has already 
become public. 

The collection by the belligerent of the necessary proofs to estab- 
lish his case against an aircraft or a vessel may take time. The 
examination of the message logs of many other vessels or aircraft 
may be necessary before responsibility can be fixed upon the par- 
ticular vessel or aircraft which transmitted the incriminating 
message. It is therefore not possible to limit the right of capture to 
the duration of the voyage or flight during which the message was 
sent. How long the liability to capture should subsist was a more 



RADIO ON AIRCRAFT 103 

difficult point to determine. Agreement was ultimately reached on 
a basis of one year. 

It is realised that the risk of capture during this period will be a 
great prejudice to neutrals, but on the other hand the injury done 
to the belligerent by the transmission by radio of improper messages 
may under modern conditions of warfare be irreparable, and there- 
fore the sanctions attached to the rule must be serious. The neutral 
will, however, not be gravely inconvenienced by the measures neces- 
sary to protect himself against any violation of the rule. 

In the case of all aircraft and of merchant vessels which are not 
carrying passengers, no great injury will result from the prohibition 
of radio messages other than those which are authorized by article 9, 
and in the case of merchant vessels carrying passengers, there can 
be no insuperable difficulty in the institution on board the merchant 
vessel, if it is thought necessary, of the same measures as the neutral 
State may institute on land to protect itself under article 3. 

Paragraph 3 is limited to neutral vessels and aircraft because 
enemy vessels and aircraft are liable to capture at any time by 
reason of their enemy status. 

It goes without saying that as capture is a belligerent right it 
cannot be exercised except in time of war, and therefore if the war 
terminates before the expiration of the time limit, the liability to 
capture is at an end. 

The Netherlands Delegation has made a reserve on the subject 
of this article. It feels that the difficulties of obtaining satisfactory 
proofs against a neutral vessel or aircraft in the prize court will be 
so great in these cases that provision should be made for the inter- 
national review of prize court decisions under this article. In its 
opinion the Permanent Court of International Justice would be the 
most appropriate tribunal for this purpose. 

Article 6 

1. The transmission by radio by a vessel or an aircraft, whether enemy or 
neutral, when on or over the high seas of military intelligence for the imme- 
diate use of a belligerent is to be deemed a hostile act and will render the 
vessel or aircraft liable to be fired upon. 

2. A neutral vessel or neutral aircraft which transmits when on or over 
the high seas information destined for a belligerent concerning military opera- 
tions or military forces shall be liable to capture. The Prize Court may con- 
demn the vessel or aircraft if it considers that the circumstances justify 
condemnation. 

3. Liability to capture of a neutral vessel or aircraft on account of the acts 
referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) is not extinguished by the conclusion 
of the voyage or flight on which the vessel or aircraft was engaged at the time, 
but shall subsist for a period of one year after the act complained of. 



104 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

Apart from the question of the acquisition by the enemy of infor- 
mation, the use of radio installations by merchant vessels or aircraft 
may very well be a source of great embarrassment to the commander 
of a belligerent force. Not merely may it be essential to him to keep 
secret the strength of his forces or the operations in which they are 
engaged, but it may be necessary to ensure that there should be no 
interference with his comunications. Further provisions are, there- 
fore, required to complete the protection afforded to belligerents 
by article 6. 

For this purpose power is given to a belligerent commander to 
warn off neutral vessels and neutral aircraft and to oblige them to 
alter their course so that they will not approach the scene of the 
operations of the armed forces. 

A second right given to a belligerent commander is to impose on 
neutral vessels and aircraft a period of silence in the use of their 
transmitting apparatus when in the immediate vicinity of the forces 
under his command. No matter what technical measures may be 
taken by neutral mobile stations in accordance with the provisions 
of article 1, their messages, if made at a short distance from the 
receiving apparatus of belligerent forces, might interfere with the 
working of such apparatus, and such interference might prevent the 
hearing of messages to or from the commanding officer or the other 
units under his command. 

To avoid undue hardship to neutrals, the faculty conferred upon 
the belligerent commander is limited to the duration of the opera- 
tions in which he is engaged at the time. The article presupposes the 
actual presence of naval or aerial forces engaged in operations, and 
that the measures will not be applicable to widely extended zones 
or to zones in which no military action is taking place. 

It is also understood that the change of course provided for in the 
first paragraph of the article must not prevent a ship or an aircraft 
from continuing its voyage and from reaching its port of desti- 
nation. 

The article is confined in terms to neutral vessels and aircraft 
because the belligerent commanding officer requires no special pro- 
vision to protect himself against the operations of enemy vessels and 
enemy aircraft. 

It will be noted that the terms in which the article is drafted as 
well as those employed in articles 6 and 8 would cover neutral public 
vessels or aircaft. This does not imply any intention to encroach 
upon the rights of neutral States. It is assumed that no such neutral 
public vessels or aircraft would attempt to interfere in any such 
manner with the naval or aerial operations conducted by the forces 
of a State engaged in war. 



BELLIGERENT CONTROL 105 

Article 7 

In case a belligerent commanding officer considers that the success of the 
operation in which he is engaged may be prejudiced by the presence of vessels 
or aircraft equipped with radio installations in the immediate vicinity of his 
armed forces or by the use of such installations therein, he may order neutral 
vessels or neutral aircraft on or over the high seas : 

1. To alter their course to such an extent as will be necessary to prevent 
their approaching the armed forces operating under his command ; or 

2. Not to make use of their radio transmitting apparatus while in the im- 
mediate vicinity of such forces. 

A neutral vessel or neutral aircraft, which does not conform to such direc- 
tion of which it has had notice, exposes itself to the risk of being fired upon. 
It will also be liable to capture, and may be condemned if the Prize Court con- 
siders that the circumstances justify condemnation. 

Article 8 was intended to avoid, as far as possible, the eventuality 
of one of the belligerents being able to find on board a neutral mobile 
radio station any texts of radio messages transmitted from the radio 
stations of the belligerents and not destined for such neutral mobile 
station. 

Such radio messages might possess military importance, and the 
neutral would thus involuntarily assist one of the belligerents by 
furnishing him with the means of becoming acquainted with such 
radio messages. 

The seizure of the texts, entailing as it will the removal from the 
official log of the pages on which the operator enters the messages 
transmitted and received, together with an indication of the hour 
of such transmission and reception, has appeared to the Commission 
to be a sufficient penalty in veiw of the fact that such a proceeding 
would attract the attention of the administration to which the mobile 
station belongs, and would show that the responsible persons in the 
service of that station had not obeyed the provisions of the present 
article. 

Provision is only made for the mere removal by the belligerent of 
the relevant pages. 

The origin of the radio messages received is shown by the indica- 
tions at the beginning of the message or in the call-sign. Military 
stations use the indications entered in the register of the International 
Bureau at Berne, or else secret indications which do not appear in 
that official register. No written record should therefore be pre- 
served of radio-telegrams which are preceded either by the indica- 
tions of a belligerent military station or by an unknown indication. 

It is to be noted that the text of this article does not exclude the 
application of sanctions directed against unneutral service, if it is 
proved that the breach of the provisions in question was committed 
with an intention of rendering unneutral service. 



106 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

Article 8 

Neutral aaobile radio stations shall refrain from keeping any record of radio 
messages received from belligerent military radio stations, unless such mes- 
sages are addressed to themselves. 

Violation of this rule will justify the removal by the belligerent of the 
records of such intercepted messages. 

In the first paragraph of article 9 the Commission was anxious to 
indicate that belligerents who heard signals or messages of distress 
must, when deciding whether or no they would respond to such 
signals, take into account both their duties to humanity and their 
military duties. 

The second paragraph is inspired solely by sentiments of human- 
ity with a view to saving human life at sea. The text specifies 
clearly that every mobile station finding itself in danger or per- 
ceiving an immediate danger for other mobile stations will have the 
right, however it may be affected by other provisions of these rules, 
to transmit messages in order to ask for help or to signal the 
danger for navigation which it has perceived. By the words " mes- 
sages which are indispensable to the safety of navigation," should 
be understood only such messages as are immediately necessary for 
preventing the collision, stranding or loss of ships or aircraft. 

Article 9 

Belligerents are under obligation to comply with the provisions of interna 
tional conventions in regard to distress signals and distress messages so far 
as their military operations permit. 

Nothing in these rules shall be understood to relieve a belligerent from such 
obligation or to prohibit the transmission of distress signals, distress messages 
and messages which are indispensable to the safety of navigation. 

Article 10 is inserted to prevent the employment of signals and 
messages of distress as ruses of war. It is justified by considerations 
■of honour and humanity. Persons who violate the rule may be 
punished. 

Article 10 

The perversion of radio distress signals and distress messages prescribed 
Jby international conventions to other than their normal and legitimate pur- 
poses constitutes a violation of the laws of war and renders the perpetrator 
personally responsible under international law. 

The purpose of article 11 is to show clearly that the question 
whether an act which involves a breach of these rules constitutes also 
an act of espionage cannot be answered except by reference to the 
rules of international law which determine what acts amount to 
espionage. 



ESPIONAGE 107 

Article 11 

Acts not otherwise constituting espionage are not espionage by reason of 
their involving violation of these rules. 

The purpose of article 12 is to define clearly the position of the 
radio operator so far as regards personal liability to punishment. 
The operator works in his cabin where he executes the orders of those 
above him. Consequently it is right that he should incur no personal 
responsibility merely because he has executed orders which he has 
received in the discharge of his duties as radio operator. Liability 
to punishment for acts which contravene rules such as articles 9 
or 10 falls on those who have given the orders for such acts. 

Article 12 

Badio operators incur no personal responsibility from the mere fact of carry- 
ing out the orders which they receive in the performance of their duties as 
operators. 

It has not been thought necessary to insert in the rules an article 
denning the word " radio-station " or " station radio-telegraphique." 
The phrase is used in both texts as covering radio-telegraphic sta- 
tions, radio-telephonic stations, radio-goniometric stations and gen- 
erally all stations which use Hertzian waves transmitted through air, 
water or earth. 

The Japanese Delegation submitted to the Commission the fol- 
lowing proposal : 

The belligerent may take such measures as to render inoperative the coastal 
radio stations in enemy jurisdiction, irrespective of their owners. 

After examining and discussing this proposal, the Commission 
came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to insert a special 
article referring to the subject. It was of opinion that the texts of 
other international conventions or the usages of war covered the 
question in all its practical aspects and gave the right to take the 
measures contemplated in the Japanese proposal. 

The Land Warfare Regulations and the Naval Bombardment 
Convention, 1907 (No. IX of 1907), permit the bombardment of 
coastal radio stations by land or naval forces. Article 24 of the rules 
for aerial warfare enables similar measures to be taken by the air 
forces against radio stations used for military purposes. Further- 
more article 53 of the Land Warfare Regulations authorises the seiz- 
ure by a belligerent in occupation of enemy territory of coastal radio 
stations, even if such stations belong to private individuals. 

An interesting proposal was submitted by the Italian Delegation 
for protecting the radio-telegraphic communications of combatant 
forces by the establishment around them of a kind of "zone of 



108 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

silence." The Commission agreed that this idea was already implied 
in the text of article 7, and that it was consequently not necessary to 
express it in a special article. 

PART II. RULES OF AERIAL WARFARE 

In the preparation of the code of rules of aerial warfare the Com- 
mission worked on the basis of a draft submitted by the American 
Delegation. A similar draft, covering in general the same ground, 
was submitted by the British Delegation. In the discussion of the 
various articles adopted by the Commission the provisions contained 
in each of these drafts were taken into consideration, as well as 
amendments and proposals submitted by other Delegations. 

Chapter I. Applicability: Classification and Remarks 

No attempt has been made to formulate a definition of the term 
" aircraft," nor to enumerate the various categories of machines 
which are covered by the term. A statement of the broad principle 
that the rules adopted apply to all types of aircraft has been thought 
sufficient, and article 1 has been framed for this purpose. 

Article 1 

The rules of aerial warfare apply to all aircraft, whether lighter or heavier 
than air, irrespective of whether they are, or are not, capable of floating on 
the water. 

For States which are parties to the Air Navigation Convention of 
1919, aircraft are divided by article 30 into two classes, State aircraft 
and private aircraft, State aircraft being sub-divided into military 
aircraft and aircraft exclusively employed in State service, such as 
posts, customs or police. The article also provides, however, that 
State aircraft, other than military, customs and police aircraft, are 
to be treated as private aircraft, and subject as such to all the pro- 
visions of that Convention. For practical purposes, therefore, States 
which are parties to the Convention of 1919 divide aircraft in time of 
peace into three categories : 

(a) Military aircraft. 

(b) State aircraft employed for customs and police purposes. 

(c) Private aircraft and such State aircraft as are employed 

for purposes other than those enumerated in (h). 
The Convention of 1919 has not yet become by any means 
universal, but it would be so inconvenient for States, which are 
parties to it, to come under different rules in time of war, that ac- 
count has been taken of the provisions of the Convention when 
framing the articles adopted by the Commission. 



CLASSIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT 109 

It has also been necessary to take into account the fact that Italy 
has entrusted the supervision of the customs service to the military 
forces, a fact which has prevented the adoption of exactly the same 
language as that employed in article 30 of the Convention of 1919. 
When read in conjunction, however, with article 5 below, it will be 
found that the classification adopted by the code of rules of aerial 
warfare corresponds very nearly with that prescribed in article 30 
of the Convention mentioned above, 

Article 2 

The following shall be deemed to be public aircraft : 

(a) Military aircraft. 

<6) Non-military aircraft exclusively employed in the public service. 
All other aircraft shall be deemed to be private aircraft. 

A clear distinction must be made between aircraft which form 
part of the combatant forces in time of war and those which do not. 
Each class must be easily recognisable; this is essential if the im- 
munities to which non-combatant aircraft are entitled are to be 
respected. Article 3 has been framed with this object. 

Article 3 

A military aircraft shall bear an external mark indicating its nationality 
and military character. 

Public non-military aircraft are not in command of persons com- 
missioned or enlisted in the fighting forces ; consequently there must 
be evidence on board the aircraft of the service in which they are 
engaged. Such evidence is afforded by their papers. It will be seen 
by reference to article 51 below that aircraft of this class may be 
visited for the purpose of the verification of their papers. 

Article 4 

A public non-military aircraft employed for customs or police purposes shall 
carry papers evidencing the fact that it is exclusively employed in the public 
service. Such an aircraft shall bear an external mark indicating its nationality 
and its public non-military character. 

Article 5 has been adopted for the purpose of regulating the 
position of State-owned aircraft employed in the postal service, or 
for commercial purposes. Such aircraft will be engaged in inter- 
national traffic which should properly subject them to the same 
measures of control as those to which private aircraft are subject. 
They should also bear the same marks. 



110 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

In terms the article applies to all public non-military aircraft 
other than those employed for customs or police purposes, following 
in this respect the language adopted in the last paragraph of article 
30 of the Air Navigation Convention of 1919. It is in connection 
with aircraft employed in the postal service or for commercial 
purposes that it will find its chief application. 

Objection has been expressed to this article by the Netherlands 
Delegation on the ground that its effect will be to subject State- 
owned aircraft to capture and to the jurisdiction of belligerent prize 
courts. 

Article 5 

Public non-military aircraft other than those employed for customs or police 
purposes shall in time of war bear the same external marks, and for the pur- 
poses of these rules shall be treated on the same footing, as private aircraft. 

Private aircraft must in time of war bear marks to indicate their 
nationality and character and to enable the aircraft to be identified. 
It would be inconvenient that the marks to be borne in war time 
should differ from those borne in time of peace. For peace time the 
marks which a private aircraft is to bear are prescribed in the Air 
Navigation Convention of 1919. This Convention, however, is not 
universal in character and account must be taken of the position of 
States which are not parties to it. Nevertheless, all States, whether 
parties to the Convention or not, will before long have enacted 
legislation as to the marks which aircraft of that nationality are to 
bear. The Commission has therefore felt that it will be sufficient to 
lay down as the rule for time of war that aircraft must bear the marks 
which are prescribed by the legislation in force in their own country. 
Foreign Powers, whether belligerent or neutral, are not concerned 
with the enforcement of that legislation as such ; that is a matter for 
the municipal courts of the country concerned. The object of the 
article is to afford to belligerent and neutral authorities a guide as 
to the marks which a private aircraft must bear. 

Article 6 

Aircraft not comprised in articles 3 and 4 and deemed to be private aircraft 
shall carry such papers and bear such external marks as are required by the 
rules in force in their own country. These marks must indicate their na- 
tionality and character. 

Great abuses might prevail if the external marks affixed to an 
aircraft could be altered while the machine was in flight. It is also 
necessary that the marks should be clearly visible. The principles 
adopted in article 7 are in harmony with the provisions of the Air 
Navigation Convention of 1919. 



EXTERNAL MARKS 111 

Article 7 

The external marks required by the above articles shall be so affixed that 
they cannot be altered in flight. They shall be as large as is practicable and 
shall be visible from above, from below, and from each side. 

Each State chooses for itself the marks which its aircraft are to 
bear. The marks chosen for private aircraft in time of peace by 
States which are parties to the Air Navigation Convention of 1919 
are set out in that Convention, and are generally known. It is 
equally important that the marks for public aircraft, whether mili- 
tary or non-military, should be equally well known, and also the 
marks chosen for private aircraft possessing the nationality of a 
State, which is not a party to the said Convention. Notification to 
all other Powers is, therefore, provided for of the marks prescribed 
by the rules in force in each State. 

Necessity may arise for a change in the marks adopted by each 
State. When that happens the change must be notified. If the 
change is made in time of peace, there can be no difficulty in notify- 
ing it before it is brought into force. 

In time of war changes must be notified as soon as possible and at 
latest when they are communicated by the State concerned to its 
own fighting forces. It will be important to a State, which changes 
the marks on its military aircraft in time of war, to notify the change 
as quickly as possible to its own forces, as otherwise the aircraft 
might run the risk of being shot down by their own side. For this 
reason no anxiety need be felt that there will be any attempt to 
evade compliance with the rule. 

Regret has been expressed in some quarters that any change 
should be allowed in time of war of the marks adopted by a particular 
State. The practical reasons, however, in favour of allowing such 
modifications are overwhelming. The marks adopted by different 
countries for their military machines are in some cases not very dis- 
similar, and if war broke out between two countries whose military 
machines bore marks which were not readily distinguishable, it 
would be essential that a modification should be made. 

Article 8 

The external marks, prescribed by the rules in force in each State, shall be 
notified promptly to all other Powers. 

Modifications adopted in time of peace of the rules prescribing external marks: 
shall be notified to all other Powers before they are brought into force. 

Modifications of such rules adopted at the outbreak of war or during hos- 
tilities shall be notified by each Power as soon as possible to all other Powers 
and at latest when they are communicated to its own fightir>g forces. 

Article 9 is founded upon a proposal first submitted by the 
Japanese Delegation; an American proposal to the same effect was. 



112 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 



submitted at a later stage. The subject of the article is one of some 
difficulty and one which has in times past been fruitful of discussions 
and disagreements in connection with warships, the Powers not 
having been able to agree whether the act of sovereignty involved 
in the commissioning of a warship might properly be exercised on 
the high seas (see the preamble to Convention VII of 1907). 

The proposal received the support of a majority of the delegations 
only, the French Delegation being unable to accept it. 

Article 9 

A belligerent non-military aircraft, whether public or private, may be con- 
verted into a military aircraft, provided that the conversion is effected within 
the jurisdiction of the belligerent State to which the aircraft belongs and not 
-on the high seas. 

The proposal submitted by the Japanese Delegation would also 
have prevented the conversion of military aircraft into private, 
aircraft except within the jurisdiction of the belligerent State con- 
cerned. The majority of the members of the Commission were of 
opinion that an article on this subject was not required. It does 
not seem likely that such conversion would be effected upon the 
high seas except for the purpose of enabling an aircraft, not other- 
wise entitled to do so, to enter neutral territory. There would be 
many practical difficulties in the way of any such conversion: not 
only would identity marks have to be affixed which would depend 
on the registration in the home State, but a civilian crew would 
have to be obtained and various certificates would be required, all 
of which should be dated. If the marks and papers belonging to 
some other aircraft were used, the marks and papers would be false. 
A fraud would have been practised on the neutral State. Even if 
the proceedings were authorised by the belligerent State concerned, 
so that it would be valid under its own law, the marks would still 
be false marks so far as concerned the neutral State, and if it became 
aware of the fraud committed, it would be justified in disregarding 
the conversion. 

Article 10 adopts for time of war a principle which has already 
been adopted for private aircraft in time of peace by article 8 of 
the Air Navigation Convention of 1919. 

Article 10 
No aircraft may possess more than one nationality. 

Chapter II. General Principles 

Article 11 embodies the general principle that outside the juris- 
diction of any State, i. e., in the air space over the high seas, all air- 
craft have full freedom of passage. Provisions embodied in other 



MOVEMENT AND SOJOURN OF AIRCRAFT 113 

articles which restrict the liberty of individual aircraft are to be 
regarded as exceptions to this general principle. 

Article 11 

Outside the jurisdiction of any State, belligerent or neutral, all aircraft 
shall have full freedom of passage through the air and of alighting. 

In time of peace many States are subject to treaty obligations 
requiring them to allow aircraft of other States to circulate in the 
air space above their territory. In time of war a State must possess 
greater freedom of action. Article 12 therefore recognises the liberty 
of each State to enact such rules on this subject as it may deem 
necessary. 

Article 12 

In time of war any State, whether belligerent or neutral, may forbid or 
regulate the entrance, movement or sojourn of aircraft within its jurisdiction. 

KNOWLEDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE WAR 

Among the provisions contained in the original American draft 
was an article to the following effect: 

The liability of an aircraft for violation of the laws of war is contingent upon 
her actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of the war. 

The discussions upon this article led the American Delegation ta 
withdraw the proposal. 

Knowledge of the existence of a state of war was frequently in 
the past an important element in deciding cases instituted in prize 
courts for the condemnation of a ship or goods. Sailing ships were 
often at sea in old days for months without touching at any port, and 
under such conditions it was easy for a vessel to be unaware of the 
outbreak of war. The question diminished in importance when 
steamships tended to replace sailing ships, and diminished still more 
in importance when wireless telegraphy was invented and fitted to 
sea-going ships. 

With aircraft the case is different ; the velocity of their flight and 
the small suplies of fuel which they can carry will render it unusual 
for a flight to exceed twelve hours in length. Cases are therefore not 
likely to arise in which there can be any doubt of the actual know- 
ledge of the existence of a state of war, or in which constructive 
knowledge has to be relied on. Furthermore, all aircraft of impor- 
tant size are likely to be fitted with a wireless installation. 

The Declaration of London, framed in 1909, contained provisions 
on this subject (see articles 43 and 45), and it was then found 
necessary to deal with the matter in greater detail than is attempted 
in the above American proposal. Until experience shows that it is 
necessary to frame a rule on this subject for aircraft, it seems more 



114 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

prudent to leave the matter to rest on the basis of the general rules 
of international law. 

So far as concerns neutral Powers, the Convention on the Opening 
of Hostilities (No. Ill of 1907) lays down that the existence of a 
state of Avar must be notified to neutral Powers, and that they are 
subject to no obligations arising therefrom until the receipt of such 
notification. They cannot, however, rely on the absence of any such 
notification, if it can be established that they were actually aware 
of the existence of the state of war. This provision seems adequate 
and satisfactory. 

Chapter III. Belligerents 

The use of privateers in naval warfare was abolished by the 
Declaration of Paris, 1856. Belligerent rights at sea can now only 
be exercised by units under the direct authority, immediate control 
and responsibility of the State. This same principle should apply 
to aerial warfare. Belligerent rights should therefore only be 
exercised by military aircraft. 

Article 13 

Military aircraft are alone entitled to exercise belligerent rights. 

Operations of war involve the responsibility of the State. Units 
of the fighting forces must, therefore, be under the direct control of 
persons responsible to the State. For the same reason the crew 
must be exclusively military in order that they may be subject to 
military discipline. 

Article 14 

A military aircraft shall be under the command of a person duly com- 
missioned or enlisted in the military service of the State; the crew must be 
exclusively military. 

Combatant members of the armed land forces must, if they are 
not in uniform, wear at least a distinctive emblem. So long as the 
officers or crew of a military aircraft are on board the aircraft there is 
no risk of any doubt as to their combatant status, but if they are 
forced to land they may become separated from the machine. In 
that event it is necessary for their own protection that their com- 
batant status should be easily recognised. 

Article 15 

Members of the crew of a military aircraft shall wear a fixed distinctive 
emblem of such character as to be recognisable at a distance in case they be- 
come separated from their aircraft. 

The next article indicates the aircraft which may engage in 
hostilities, and forbids private aircraft from being armed when they 
are outside the jurisdiction of their own country. 



RESTRICTIONS ON AIRCRAFT 115 

The immunities which a belligerent is bound to respect in a non- 
combatant impose upon the non-combatant a corresponding obliga- 
tion not to take part in hostilities. This principle applies equally to 
aerial warfare. If a distinction is to be drawn between military and 
other aircraft, the distinction must be observed on both sides, and 
non-military aircraft must not attempt to engage in hostilities in 
any form. 

To give full effect to this principle, a non-military aircraft must 
be debarred from transmitting, during flight, military intelligence 
for the benefit of a belligerent. This rule will be seen to be natural 
and logical if the peculiar characteristics of aircraft are borne in mind. 
It is as scouts and observers that one of their principal uses is found 
in time of war. If non-military aircraft were to be allowed to act in 
this capacity, injury of very serious consequence might be done to 
the opposing belligerent. If exposed to such risk, no belligerent 
could agree to respect the immunities which a non-combatant air- 
craft should enjoy, and the only way to ensure such respect is to 
recognise that the transmission of military intelligence for the benefit 
of a belligerent is a participation in hostilities, which would constitute 
a violation of the laws of war and would be dealt with accordingly. 

The rule as framed has been restricted within the narrowest limits 
■compatible with military safety. It is limited to transmission of 
intelligence during flight. When the flight has been completed, the 
individual concerned will be within the jurisdiction of some State, 
and there the control of the transmission of information will be 
subject to the regulations of that State. It will not be affected by the 
provisions of this article. 

The mounting of arms in time of war may be construed as 'prima 
facie evidence of an intention to take part in hostilities. It is true 
that of recent years certain States found it necessary to arm merchant 
ships in self-protection, but the conditions of air warfare are so 
different that it has not been thought necessary to allow for such a 
proceeding on the part of aircraft. A gun would not be an adequate 
protection to an aircraft against illegal attack, as the first warning 
the aircraft might have of any such attack would be an act which 
might involve its destruction. 

On the other hand, to permit private aircraft to be armed would 
facilitate acts of perfidy on the part of an opposing belligerent ; an 
aircraft masquerading under false marks might suddenly open fire, 
and the risk of this would be sufficient to render it dangerous for an 
honest belligerent to respect the immunities of private aircraft to the 
extent which he would wish. 

The interests of private aircraft are from every point of view 
better served by the adoption of a rule against the arming of private 
aircraft in time of war. 



116 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

The article as framed does not extend to aircraft within the juris- 
diction of their own State. Such an extension would be an unreason- 
able interference with the domestic jurisdiction of the State 
concerned. 

The rule against aircraft being armed is limited to private air- 
craft. Public non-military aircraft engaged in customs or police 
work may find it necessary to carry arms because the fulfillment of 
their functions renders it essential for them to be able to apply 
coercion in case of need. In their case, the carriage of arms would 
raise no presumption of an intention to take part in hostilities, but 
they are subject just as much as private aircraft to the provisions of 
the first two paragraphs of the article. 

Article 16 

No aircraft other than a belligerent military aircraft shall engage in hostili- 
ties in any form. 

The term "hostilities" includes the transmission during flight of military 
intelligence for the immediate use of a belligerent. 

No private aircraft, when outside the jurisdiction of its own country, shall 
be armed in time of war. 

The provisions of the Geneva Convention have been applied to 
maritime warfare by the Convention signed at The Hague in 1907 
(Convention X of 1907). It will probably be found desirable to ex- 
tend them in due course to warfare in the air and to negotiate a spe- 
cial convention for this purpose. Pending the conclusion of any 
such convention, a rule has been adopted stating broadly that these 
conventions apply to aerial warfare. Flying ambulances should en- 
joy the privileges and immunities conferred by the Geneva Conven- 
tion upon mobile medical units or sanitary formations. The work of 
such flying ambulances must, of course, be carried out subject to 
similar conditions of belligerent control as those laid down in the 
Conventions of 1906 and 1907, and they must devote themselves 
to the task of succouring all wounded impartially in accordance with 
the principles embodied in these Conventions. When the new 
special convention referred to above is concluded, the opportunity 
will no doubt be taken to extend to flying ambulances the exemption 
from dues already conferred by treaty upon hospital ships which 
enter a foreign port. 

Article 17 

The principles laid down in the Geneva Convention, 1906, and the Conven- 
tion for the adaptation of the said Convention to Maritime War (No. X of 
1907) shall apply to aerial warfare and to flying ambulances, as well as to the 
control over flying ambulances exercised by a belligerent commanding officer. 

In order to enjoy the protection and privileges allowed to mobile medical 
units by the Geneva Convention, 1906, flying ambulances must bear the dis- 
tinctive emblem of the Red Cross in addition to the usual distinguishing marks. 



CONDUCT OF HOSTILITIES 117 

Chapter IV. Hostilities 

Article 18 is intended to clear up a doubt which arose during the 
recent war. The use of tracer bullets against aircraft was a general 
practice in all the contending armies. In the absence of a hard 
surface on which the bullet will strike, an airman cannot tell whether 
or not his aim is correct. These bullets were used for the purpose 
of enabling the airman to correct his aim, as the trail of vapour which 
they leave behind indicates to him the exact line of fire. In one 
case, however, combatant airmen were arrested and put on trial on 
the ground that the use of these bullets constituted a breach of the 
existing rules of war laid down by treaty. 

The use of incendiary bullets is also necessary as a means of 
attack against lighter-than-air craft, as it is by setting fire to the 
gas contained by these aircraft that they can most easily be destroyed. 

In the form in which the proposal was first brought forward its 
provisions were limited to a stipulation that the use of tracer bullets 
against aircraft generally was not prohibited. 

Various criticisms were, however, made about the proposed text, 
chiefly founded on the impracticability for an airman while in flight 
to change the ammunition which he is using in the machine gun in 
his aircraft. He cannot employ different bullets in accordance with 
the target at which he is aiming, one sort of ammunition for other 
aircraft and another sort for land forces by whom he may be 
attacked. 

The Commission, therefore, came to the conclusion that the most 
satisfactory solution of the problem would be to state specifically 
that the use of tracer, incendiary or explosive projectiles by or 
against aircraft is not prohibited. 

Article 18 

The use of tracer, incendiary or explosive projectiles by or against aircraft is 
not prohibited. 

This provision applies equally to States which are parties to the Declaration 
of St. Petersburg, 1868, and to those which are not. 

In order that there may be no doubt that the use of false external 
marks is not a legitimate ruse it has been specifically prohibited. 
By later provisions in the rules, the use of false external marks is 
made a ground for capture and condemnation of a neutral aircraft. 

What are here referred to are false marks of nationality or char- 
acter, the marks which are dealt with in Chapter I of these rules. 
The article would not apply to mere squadron badges or other em- 
blems which are only of interest to one particular belligerent force. 



118 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

Abticle 19 

The use of false external marks is forbidden. 

Another mode of injuring the enemy, which it has seemed desir- 
able to prohibit, is that of firing at airmen escaping from a disabled! 
aircraft. 

Article 20 

When an aircraft has been disabled, the occupants, when endeavouring to- 
escape by means of a parachute, must not be attacked in the course of their 
descent. 

Incidents took place in the recent war which showed the desira- 
bility of having a distinct rule on the question whether the dropping 
of leaflets for propaganda purposes was a legitimate means of 
warfare. 

Attempts were made by one belligerent to impose heavy penalties on 
airmen who were forced to descend within his lines after engaging in 
this work. 

Article 21 has been framed to meet this case. It is not limited to- 
dropping leaflets, as aircraft can disseminate propaganda by other 
means, such for instance, as emitting trails of smoke in the form of 
words in the sky. 

What is legalised by the article is the use of aircraft for distrib- 
uting propaganda. It does not follow that propaganda of all kinds 
is thereby validated. Incitements to murder or assassination will,, 
for instance, still be considered illegitimate forms of propaganda. 

Article 21 

The use of aircraft for the purpose of disseminating propaganda shall not 
be treated as an illegitimate means of warfare. 

Members of the crews of such aircraft must not be deprived of their rights 
as prisoners of war on the charge that they have committed such an act. 

BOMBARDMENT 

The subject of bombardment by aircraft is one of the most difficult 
to deal with in framing any code of rules for aerial warfare. 

The experiences of the recent war have left in the mind of the 
world at large a lively horror of the havoc which can be wrought by 
the indiscriminate launching of bombs and projectiles on the non- 
combatant populations of towns and cities. The conscience of man- 
kind revolts against this form of making war in places outside the 
actual theatre of military operations, and the feeling is universal 
that limitations must be imposed. 

On the other hand, it is equally clear that the aircraft is a potent 
engine of war, and no State which realises the possibility that it may 



BOMBARDMENT 119 

itself be attacked, and the use to which its adversary may put his 
air forces can take the risk of fettering its own liberty of action to an 
extent which would restrict it from attacking its enemy where that 
adversary may legitimately be attacked with effect. It is useless, 
therefore, to enact prohibitions unless there is an equally clear under- 
standing of what constitute legitimate objects of attack, and it is 
precisely in this respect that agreement was difficult to reach. 

Before passing to a consideration of the articles which have been 
agreed, mention must be made of the Declaration prohibiting the 
Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons, signed at 
The Hague in 1907. Three of the States represented on the Com- 
mission 22 are parties to that Declaration; the other three are not. 
Under the terms of this Declaration the Contracting Powers agree 
to prohibit the discharge of projectiles and explosives from balloons. 
or by other new methods of a similar nature. Its terms are, there- 
fore, wide enough to cover bombardment by aircraft. On the other 
hand, the scope of the Declaration is very limited; in duration it is 
to last only until the close of the Third Peace Conference, a con- 
ference which was to have been summoned for 1914 or 1915, and its. 
application is confined to a war between contracting States without 
the participation of a non-contracting State. 

The existence of this Declaration can afford no solution of the 
problems arising out of the question of bombardment from the air, 
even for the States which are parties to it. 

The number of parties is so small that, even if the Declaration 
were renewed, no confidence could ever be felt that when a war broke 
out it would apply. A general agreement, therefore, on the subject 
of bombardment from the air is much to be desired. For the States 
which are parties to it, however, the Declaration exists and it is well 
that the legal situation should be clearly understood. 

As between the parties it will continue in force and will operate in 
the event of a war between them, unless by mutual agreement its, 
terms are modified, or an understanding reached that it shall be 
regarded as replaced by some new conventional stipulation; but it 
will in any case cease to operate at the moment when a Third Peace 
Conference concludes its labours, or if any State Avhich is not a party 
to the Declaration intervenes in the war as a belligerent. 

No difficulty was found in reaching an agreement that there are 
certain purposes for which aerial bombardment is inadmissible. 

Article 22 has been formulated with this object. 

^United States of America, Great Britain, and The Netherlands. 



120 REPORT COMMISSION" OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

Article 22 

Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorising the civilian population, 
of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of 
injuring non-combatants is prohibited. 

The Naval Bombardment Convention of 1907 (No. IX) allows 
bombardment for enforcing payment of requisitions for supplies 
necessary for the immediate use of the naval forces (article 3), but 
not for enforcing payment of money contributions (article 4). 

For aerial warfare it has been decided to adopt the more stringent 
rule of the Land Warfare Regulations. 

Article 23 

Aerial bombardment for the purpose of enforcing compliance with requisi- 
tions in kind or payment of contributions in money is prohibited. 

Agreement on the following article specifying the objects which 
may legitimately be bombarded from the air was not reached without 
prolonged discussion. Numerous proposals were put forwad by the 
various delegations before unanimity was ultimately attained. The 
text of these proposals will be found in the minutes. In particular, 
mention may be made of an Italian proposal of the 8th February, 
on which the text ultimately adopted was in great part founded. 
Regret was expressed by some delegations that a more far-reaching 
prohibition did not meet with unanimous acceptance. 

The terms of the article are so clear that no explanation of the 
provisions is necessary, but it may be well to state that in the phrase 
in paragraph 2 " military establishments or depots " the word 
" depots " is intended to cover all collections of supplies for military 
use which have passed into the possession of the military authorities 
and are ready for delivery to the forces, " distinctively military 
supplies " in the succeeding phrase is intended to cover those which 
by their nature show that they are certainly manufactured for 
military purposes. 

If the code of rules of aerial warfare should eventually be annexed 
to a convention, paragraph 5 of the article would find a more appro- 
priate place in the convention. 

It will be noticed that for aerial bombardment the test adopted 
in article 25 of the Land Warfare Regulations, that of the town, &c, 
being defended, is abandoned. The nature of the objective or the use 
to which it is being put now becomes the test. 

Article 24 

1. Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a military 
objective, that is to say, an object of which the destruction or injury would 
constitute a distinct military advantage to the belligerent. 



BOMBARDMENT 121 

2. Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively at the 
following objectives ; military forces ; military works ; military establish- 
ments or depots ; factories constituting important and well-known centres en- 
gaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition or distinctively military sup- 
plies ; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes. 

3. The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings not in 
the immediate neighbourhood of the operations of land forces is prohibited. 
In cases where the objectives specified in paragraph 2 are so situated that they 
cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian 
population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment. 

4. In the immediate neighbourhood of the operations of land forces, the 
bombardment of cities, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings is legitimate 
provided that there exists a reasonable presumption that the military concen- 
tration is sufficiently important to justify such bombardment, having regard 
*:o the danger thus caused to the civilian population. 

5. A belligerent State is liable to pay compensation for injuries to person or 
to property caused by the violation by any of its officers or forces of the pro- 
visions of this article. 

Both in land warfare and in maritime warfare the principle has 
been adopted that certain special classes of buildings must be spared 
so far as possible in case of bombardment; for the former, by 
article 27 of the Land Warfare Regulations, for the latter by article 5 
of the Naval Bombardment Convention of 1907 (No. IX). A simi- 
lar provision, largely based on that in the Naval Bombardment Con- 
vention, has been adopted as article 25. By day, these privileged 
buildings must be marked in a way which will make them visible to 
aircraft; the marks agreed on being those laid down in the Geneva 
Convention and in the Naval Bombardment Convention; the use of 
such marks is made obligatory so as to correspond with the duty 
placed on the adversary of sparing such buildings. By night, how- 
ever, the use of lights to make the special signs visible is optional, 
because experience has shown that such lights may serve as guides to 
night-flying aircraft and may thereby be of service to the enemy. 

Article 25 

In bombardment by aircraft, all necessary steps must be taken by the 
commander to spare as far as possible buildings dedicated to public worship, 
art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospital ships, hospi- 
tals and other places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided such 
buildings, objects or places are not at the time used for military purposes. 
Such buildings, objects and places must by day be indicated by marks visible 
to aircraft. The use of marks to indicate other buildings, objects or places than 
those specified above is to be deemed an act of perfidy. The marks used as 
aforesaid shall be in the case of buildings protected under the Geneva Conven- 
tion the red cross on a white ground, and in the case of other protected 
buildings a large rectangular panel divided diagonally into two pointed 
triangular portions, one black and the other white. 

57920—26 9 



122 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

A belligerent who desires to secure by night the protection for the hospitals 
and other privileged buildings above mentioned must take the necessary 
measures to render the special signs referred to sufficiently visible. 

A proposal was submitted by the Italian Delegation for the pur- 
pose of securing better protection from aerial bombardment for 
important historic monuments. During the recent war it was not 
found that the articles in the Land Warfare Regulations and the 
Naval Bombardment Convention were sufficient to prevent historic 
monuments from being bombarded. An unscruplous opponent can 
always allege that they are being used for military purposes and 
ignore the written agreements accordingly. There is also the possi- 
bility that in the attack on some object which is a legitimate subject 
for bombardment, a historic monument in the immediate vicinity 
may be injured. 

The Italian proposal comprised two new features, the creation of a 
zone round each historic monument within which the State was to 
be debarred from committing any act which constituted a use of the 
area for military purposes, and a system of inspection under neutral 
auspices to ensure that the undertaking was carried out, both as 
regards the monument itself and the zone. By this means any 
pretext for the bombardment would be removed, and the risk of 
unintentional injury would be minimised. 

The proposal received the sympathetic consideration of all the 
Delegations and it was accordingly remitted to an expert committee 
for more detailed consideration. Article 26 has been prepared in the 
light of their report. 

The Italian proposal comprised not onty historic but also artistic 
monuments. It has seemed better to omit the word " artistic " for 
fear lest a divergence should appear to be created between the new 
article and article 25, the language of which is modelled on article 27 
of the Land Warfare Regulations and article 5 of the Naval Bombard- 
ment Convention (No. IX of 1907). The words "historic monu- 
ment " in this article are used in a broad sense. They cover all 
monuments which by reason of their great artistic value are historic 
to-day or will become historic in the future. 

It should be clearly understood that adoption of the system is only 
permissive. If a State prefers to trust only to article 25 to secure 
protection of its monuments, there is no obligation upon it to notify 
them to other Powers in peace time and to establish the surrounding 
zones which are not to be used for military purposes. 

The notification must be made through the diplomatic channel. 
It will then be open to any State receiving the notification, if it thinks 
it necessary to do so, to question within a reasonable time the propri- 
ety of regarding a particular place as an historic monument. If no 



PROTECTED AREAS 123 

question is raised with regard to the monuments notified, other 
States will be regarded as having accepted the demand for the pro- 
tection of such monuments from bombardment, and the immunity 
will then rest on the basis of agreement. For the same reason the 
notification once made must not be withdrawn after the outbreak of 
hostilities. 

Considerable hesitation was expressed in accepting the provision 
that notification must be made in time of peace. It was urged that 
the system proposed was a new procedure, that particular monu- 
ments might be forgotten, and that more elasticity should be allowed. 
On the other hand, it was urged that the essence of the scheme was 
to get agreement as to the immunity of these monuments, and that 
unless notification in time of war was excluded, it was not likely that 
any would be notified in time of peace. 

The effect of allowing a 500-metre zone to be drawn round each 
monument may well be that in certain special cases, as, for instance, 
Venice or Florence, which are particularly rich in ancient and 
historic monuments, a large portion of the city would be comprised 
within the protected zones. The zones round each monument will 
overlap and so create a continuous area. The subsequent provisions 
will, however, ensure that there is a complete absence of military 
use of any portion of the area so protected. 

It was agreed that if the belligerents did not for military reasons 
place the signs indicated in the article, enemy aviators had no right 
by reason merely of their absence to bombard the zone in question, 
if it had been duly determined and notified. 

In their report, the experts stated that they considered that llie 
marks designed to indicate the zones of protection round monuments 
should differ in design from those prescribed by article 25 for the 
historic monuments themselves. The Commission took note of this 
r ecommen d a t ion . 

The prohibition against the use of the zone surrounding the 
monument must be very strictly interpreted. There must be a com- 
plete cessation of the use of any place, including, for instance, 
factories and railwa}^ lines, with a military purpose in view. 

The special committee of inspection provided for by the article 
will be constituted by the State which has taken advantage of the 
article. There would not seem to be any need to establish the com- 
mittee until the outbreak of war. As these special arrangements 
will have to be made in order to secure full protection for its historic 
monuments, the State will be bound to afford to this committee the 
fullest opportunity for making the investigations they may think 
necessary. 



124 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

Akticle 26 

The following special rules are adopted for the purpose of enabling States to 
obtain more efficient protection for important historic monuments situated 
within their territory, provided that they are willing to refrain from the use 
of such monuments and a surrounding zone for military purposes, and to 
accept a special regime for their inspection: 

1. A State shall be entitled, if it sees fit, to establish a zone of protection 
round such monuments situated in its territory. Such zones shall in times of 
war enjoy immunity from bombardment. 

2. The monuments round which a zone is to be established shall be notified 
to other Powers in peace time through the diplomatic channel ; the notifica- 
tion shall also indicate the limits of the zones. The notification may not be 
withdrawn in time of war. 

3. The zone of protection may include, in addition to the area actually occu- 
pied by the monument or group of monuments, an outer zone, not exceeding 
500 metres in width, measured from the circumference of the said area. 

4. Marks clearly visible from aircraft either by day or by night will be 
employed for the purpose of ensuring the identification by belligerent airmen 
of the limits of the zones. 

5. The marks on the monuments themselves will be those defined in article 
25. The marks employed for indicating the surrounding zones will be fixed 
by each State adopting the provisions of this article, and will be notified to 
other Powers at the same time as the monuments and zones are notified. 

6. Any abusive use of the marks indicating the zones referred to in para- 
graph 5 will be regarded as an act of perfidy. 

7. A State adopting the provisions of this article must abstain from using 
the monument and the surrounding zone for military purposes, or for the 
benefit in any way whatever of its military organisation, or from committing 
within such monument or zone any act with a military purpose in view. 

8. An inspection committee consisting of three neutral representatives 
ac&fedited to the State adopting the provisions of this article, or their dele- 
gates, shall be appointed for the purpose of ensuring that no violation is 
committed of the provisions of paragraph 7. One of the members of the 
committee of inspection shall be the representative (or his delegate) of the 
State to which has been entrusted the interests of the opposing belligerent. 

ESPIONAGE 

The articles dealing with espionage follow closely the precedent 
of the Land Warfare Kegulations. 

Article 27 is a verbal adaptation of the first paragraph of article 
29 of the Regulations, so phrased as to limit it to acts committed 
while in the air. 

Consideration has been given to the question whether there was 
any need to add to' the provision instances of actions which were not 
to be deemed acts of espionage, such as those which are given at the 
end of article 29 in the Regulations, and it was suggested that 
article 29 23 of the American draft might appropriately be intro- 
duced in this manner. It was decided that this was unnecessary. 

28 Acts of the personnel of correctly marked enemy aircraft, public or private, done or 
performed while in the air, are not to be deemed espionage. 



MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER AIRCRAFT 125 

The article sumitted by the American Delegation was intended to 
ensure that reconnaissance work openly done behind the enemy lines 
by aircraft should not be treated as spying. It is not thought likely 
that any belligerent would attempt to treat it as such. 

Article 27 

Any person on board a belligerent or neutral aircraft is to be deemed a spy 
only if acting clandestinely or on false pretences lie obtains or seeks to ob- 
tain, while in the air, information within belligerent jurisdiction or in the 
zone of operations of a belligerent with the intention of communicating it to 
the hostile party. 

Acts of espionage by members of the crew of an aircraft or by 
persons who have been carried in an aircraft may well be com- 
mitted after they have left the aircraft. They will in that case 
be subject to the Land Warfare Regulations. 

Article 28 

Acts of espionage committed after leaving the aircraft by members of the 
crew of an aircraft or by passengers transported by it are subject to the pro- 
visions of the Land Warfare Regulations. 

Two rules have been adopted in land warfare with respect to 
espionage which should apply equally to aerial warfare. These 
are that a spy cannot be punished without previous trial, and that 
a member of an army who commits an act of espionage and suc- 
ceeds in rejoining the army cannot, if he is subsequently captured, 
be made responsible for the previous act of espionage. He is en- 
titled to be treated as a prisoner of war. 

Article 29 

Punishment of the acts of espionage referred to in articles 27 and 28 is 
subject to articles 30 and 31 of the Land Warfare Regulations. 

Chapter V. Military Authority over Enemy and Neutral Air- 
craft and Persons on Board 

The rapidity of its flight would enable an aircraft to embarrass 
the operations of land or sea forces, or even operations in the air, 
to an extent which might prove most inconvenient or even disas- 
trous to a belligerent commander. To protect belligerents from 
improper intrusions of this kind, it is necessary to authorise belliger- 
ent commanders to warn off the intruders, and, if the warning is 
disregarded, to compel their retirement by opening fire. 

It is easy to see that undue hardship might be occasioned to 
neutrals if advantage were taken of the faculty so conferred on 
belligerent commanding officers and attempts were made to exclude 



126 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, EADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

for long or indefinite periods all neutrals from stipulated areas or 
to prevent communication between different countries through the 
air over the high seas. The present provision only authorises a 
commanding officer to warn off aircraft during the duration of the 
operations in which he is engaged at the time. The right of neutral 
aircraft to circulate in the airspace over the high seas is emphasised 
by the provisions of article 11, which provides that "outside the 
jurisdiction of any State, belligerent or neutral, all aircraft shall 
have full freedom of passage through the air and of alighting." 

Article 30 is confined in terms to neutral aircraft, because enemy 
aircraft are in any event exposed to the risk of capture, and in the 
vicinity of military operations are subjected to more drastic treat- 
ment than that provided by this article. 

It will be noticed that the terms of the article are general in 
character and would comprise even neutral public or military air- 
craft. It goes without saying that the article is not intended to 
imply any encroachment on the rights of neutral States. It is 
assumed that no neutral public or military aircraft would depart so 
widely from the practice of States as to attempt to interfere with 
or intrude upon the operations of a belligerent State. 

Article 30 

In case a belligerent commanding officer considers that the presence of air- 
craft is likely to prejudice the success of the operations in which he is en- 
gaged at the moment, he may prohibit the passing of neutral aircraft in the 
immediate vicinity of his forces or may oblige them to follow a particular 
route. A neutral aircraft which does not conform to such directions, of which 
he has had notice issued by the belligerent commanding officer, may be fired 
upon. 

The power to requisition aircraft in occupied enemy territory is 
recognised in article 53 of the Land Warfare Regulations. The text 
of article 53 is not specific as to whether it includes neutral property, 
and though in practice it is regarded as doing so, it has been thought 
well to adopt a special rule in harmony with article 53. It is not 
unreasonable that neutral owners of property should receive payment 
for their property at once, as they are not concerned with the peace 
which will be ultimately concluded. 

Article 31 

In accordance with the principles of article 53 of the Land Warfare Regula- 
tions, neutral private aircraft found upon entry in the enemy's jurisdiction by 
a belligerent occupying force may be requisitioned, subject to the payment of 
full compensation. 

Property of the enemy State, which may be used for operations 
of war, is alwa}^s liable to confiscation if it falls into the hands of the 



LIABILITY OF BELLIGERENT AIRCRAFT 127 

opposing belligerent. It is natural, therefore, that public aircraft 
of the enemy should be so treated. 

Article 17 will create an exception in favour of flying ambulances 
as they will be protected by article 6 of the Geneva Convention, 
but this exception will be subject to the principle laid down in 
article 7 of the same Convention that the protection accorded to 
mobile medical units ceases if they are made use of to commit acts 
harmful to the enemy. 

Article 32 

Enemy public aircraft, other than those treated on the same footing as pri- 
vate aircraft, shall be subject to confiscation without prize proceedings. 

Non-military aircraft of belligerent nationality, whether public 
or private, should not in general be exposed to the risk of instant 
■destruction, but should be given the opportunity to land. If they 
are flying in the jurisdiction of their own State and enemy military 
aircraft approach, they should, for their own protection, make the 
nearest available landing. Failure to do so exposes them to the 
risk of being fired upon. 

Article 33 

Belligerent non-military aircraft, whether public or private, flying within 
the jurisdiction of their own State, are liable to be fired upon unless they make 
the nearest available landing on the approach of enemy military aircraft. 

The preceding article has dealt with the case of belligerent non- 
military aircraft flying in the jurisdiction of their own State. 
Article 34 deals with the same category of aircraft in certain other 
circumstances. If such aircraft are in the immediate vicinity of 
the territory of the enemy State, or in the immediate vicinity of its 
military operations by land or sea, they run the risk of being fired 
upon. They are, of course, liable to capture by reason of their 
enemy status, but in an area where it is probable that military 
operations will be in progress, or in any place where they are actually 
in progress, non-combatant aircraft of belligerent nationality can 
only proceed at their own risk. By their mere presence they expose 
themselves to the risk of being fired upon. 

Article 34 

Belligerent non-military aircraft, whether public or private, are liable to be 
fired upon, if they fly (1) within the jurisdiction of the enemy, or (2) in the 
immediate vicinity thereof and outside the jurisdiction of their own State, or 
(3) in the immediate vicinity of the military operations of the enemy by 
land or sea. 

The principle has already been recognised in article 30 that a 
belligerent commanding officer may warn off neutral aircraft from 



128 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

the immediate vicinity of his military operations. If they fail to 
comply with such a warning, they run the risk of being fired upon. 
Article 35 deals with neutral aircraft which may be flying within 
the jurisdiction of a belligerent country at a moment when military 
aircraft of the opposing belligerent approach. If warned of the 
approach of such military aircraft, it is their duty to make a land- 
ing ; otherwise they might hamper the movements of the combatants 
and expose themselves to the risk of being fired upon. They are not, 
however, exposed to the risk of capture and condemnation as are 
neutral aircraft failing to comply with directions issued by a bel- 
ligerent commander under article 30. 

Article 35 

Neutral aircraft flying within the jurisdiction of a belligerent, and warned 
of the approach of military aircraft of the opposing belligerent, must make 
the nearest available landing. Failure to do so exposes them to the risk of 
being fired upon. 

Article 36 regulates the position of members of the crew and of 
passengers of an enemy aircraft which falls into the hands of a 
belligerent. 

If the aircraft is a military aircraft, the crew will consist of 
members of the military forces and will, of course, be made prisoners 
of war. Any passengers will share the same fate, because in time 
of war a belligerent State would not be using its military aircraft 
for carrying non-combatant individuals unless their journey was a 
matter of importance to the State. Combatant passengers would 
naturally be made prisoners of war. 

In the case of public non-military aircraft, the same principle 
applies. It is true that the members of the crew may not be members 
of the military forces, but they constitute part of the State organisa- 
tion. As to passengers, they would not be carried on such aircraft, 
except for Government purposes. There is, however, one important 
exception. A State-owned passenger-carrying aircraft line is not by 
any means an unlikely development and, if such should be instituted, 
there would be no reason to apply this principle to all the passengers 
on such aircraft. They should only be made prisoners of war if in 
the service of the enemy, or enemy nationals fit for military service. 

As regards private aircraft, it must be remembered that the crew 
will consist of trained men, constituting a reserve upon which the 
belligerent can draw in case of need. If they are of enemy 
nationality, or in the service of the enemy, there is good reason to 
hold them as prisoners of war. If they are neutrals not in the serv- 
ice of the enemy, they are by their service on board an enemy air- 
craft releasing other men for military purposes. If they are to be 



PRISONERS OF WAR 129 

given their release, the belligerent should be entitled to protect him- 
self in the future against such indirect assistance by exacting an 
undertaking from each individual against his serving in an enemy 
aircraft during the remainder of the war. Such an undertaking 
corresponds to that provided for in the second paragraph of article 
5 of the Convention concerning restrictions on the right of capture 
in maritime war (No. XI of 1907). It was adopted there only for 
the officers of a merchant vessel, because the officers are the highly 
trained men. In the case of aircraft, it is reasonable to extend it to 
all the members of the crew. 

What is said in the report on article 37 dealing with the crew and 
passengers of neutral private aircraft as to temporary delay in 
effecting the release in certain cases and as to members of the crew 
or passengers who have rendered special services to the belligerent 
being made prisoners of war, applies also in the case of the crew and 
passengers of an enemy aircraft. 

Article 36. 

When an enemy military aircraft falls into the hands of a belligerent, the 
members of the crew and the passengers, if any, may be made prisoners of 
war. 

The same rule applies to the members of the crew and the passengers, if 
any, of an enemy public non-military aircraft, except that in the case of 
public non-military aircraft devoted exclusively to the transport of passen- 
gers, the passengers will be entitled to be released unless they are in the 
service of the enemy, or are enemy nationals fit for military service. 

If an enemy private aircraft falls into the hands of a belligerent, members 
of the crew who are enemy nationals or who are neutral nationals in the 
service of the enemy, may be made prisoners of war. Neutral members of 
the crew, who are not in the service of the enemy, are entitled to be released 
if they sign a written undertaking not to serve in any enemy aircraft while 
hostilities last. Passengers are entitled to be released unless they are in 
the service of the enemy or are enemy nationals fit for military service, in 
which cases they may be made prisoners of war. 

Release may in any case be delayed if the military interests of the bellig- 
erent so require. 

The belligerent may hold as prisoners of war any member of the crew or 
any passenger whose service in a flight at the close of which he has been 
captured has been of special and active assistance to the enemy. 

The names of individuals released after giving a written undertaking in 
accordance with the third paragraph of this article will be notified to the 
opposing belligerent, who must not knowingly employ them in violation of 
their undertaking. 

When circumstances have arisen which have led to the detention 
of a neutral private aircraft by a belligerent, the question will arise 
of the treatment to be meted out to the crew and to the passengers, 
if any, of such aircraft. In general, the crew of an aircraft will be 
very expert individuals, whose services would be of great value to a 
57920—26 10 



130 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

bejjigerent. If they are of enemy nationality or in the service of the 
enemy, or engaged in a violation of neutrality, there is good reason 
for detaining them as prisoners of war. If not, they should be 
released unconditionally. 

Passengers who are in the service of the enemy or who are enemy 
nationals fit for military service may likewise be detained. 

Immediate release of persons who cannot be made prisoners of 
war may not in all cases be feasible. The fact that military exi- 
gencies may necessitate a temporary delay in according release does 
not prejudice the right to such release in due course. 

The peculiar characteristics of aircraft may enable members of 
the crew or passengers in a neutral aircraft in time of war to render 
services of special importance to a belligerent. Where such services 
have been rendered in the course of the flight in which such persons 
were captured, the individuals may be made prisoners of war, what- 
ever their nationality. 

The rules adopted on this subject are in conformity with the 
practice of the recent war, but they have not secured unanimous 
assent. The Netherlands Delegation has felt unable to accept them 
for two reasons, viz., firstly, that they constitute an extension of the 
accepted rules of international law, and, secondly, because of the 
absence of any provision to the effect that where the detention of the 
aircraft has taken place in circumstances which are subsequently 
made the subject of prize court proceedings, and the capture is held 
to be invalid, the crew and passengers of the aircraft should be 
released unconditionally. 

Article 37 

Members of the crew of a neutral aircraft which has been detained by a 
belligerent shall be released unconditionally, if they are neutral nationals 
and not in the service of the enemy. If they are enemy nationals or in the 
service of the enemy, they may be made prisoners of war. 

Passengers are entitled to be released unless they are in the service of the 
enemy or are enemy nationals fit for military service, in which cases they 
may be made prisoners of war. 

Release may in any case be delayed if the military interests of the bellig- 
erent so require. 

The belligerent may hold as prisoners of war any member of the crew or 
any passenger whose service in a flight at the close of which he has been 
captured has been of special and active assistance to the enemy. 

The phrase " prisoner of war " in its narrower sense is applied 
to the combatant and non-combatant members of the armed forces 
of the belligerent (see article 3 of the Land Warfare Regulations). 
It is used in articles 36 and 37 in a broader sense and is applied to- 
passengers or members of the crew of neutral and enemy aircraft 
who may not be members of the belligerent armed forces at all. To 



BELLIGERENT DUTIES TO NEUTRALS 131 

avoid any risk of doubt as to the treatment to which such persons 
are entitled article 38 lays down that their treatment shall not be 
less favourable than that to which members of the armed forces are 
entitled. 

Akticle 38 

Where under the provisions of articles 36 and 37 it is provided that members 
of the crew or passengers may be made prisoners of war, it is to be understood 
that, if they are not members of the armed forces, they shall be entitled to 
treatment not less favourable than that accorded to prisoners of war. 

Chapter VI. Belligerent Duties Towards Neutral States and 
Neutral Duties Towards Belligerent States 

To avoid any suggestion that it is on the neutral Government 
alone that the obligation is incumbent to secure respect for its 
neutrality, article 39 provides that belligerent aircraft are under 
obligation to respect the rights of neutral Powers and to abstain 
from acts within neutral jurisdiction which it is the neutral's duty to 
prevent. 

It will be noticed that the article is not limited to militaiy aircraft ; 
in fact, the second phrase will apply only to belligerent aircraft of 
other categories, as it is they alone which may remain at liberty 
within neutral jurisdiction. All aircraft, however, including mili- 
tary, are bound to respect the rights of neutral Powers. 

Article 39 

Belligerent aircraft are bound to respect the rights of neutral Powers and to 
abstain within the jurisdiction of a neutral State from the commission of any 
act which it is the duty of that State to prevent. 

The principle that belligerent military aircraft should not be al- 
lowed to enter or circulate in neutral jurisdiction met with ready 
acceptance. It is in conformity with the rule adopted by the 
European States during the recent war. 

The immunities and privileges which article 17 confers on flying 
ambulances will enable the neutral State to admit them to its juris- 
diction, if it sees fit. 

Article 40 

Belligerent military aircraft are forbidden to enter the jurisdiction of a 
ntutral State. 

The customary rules of international law authorise the admission 
of belligerent warships to neutral ports and waters. There is no 
obligation upon neutral States to admit warships belonging to bellig- 
erent States, but it is not in general refused. The admission of 
belligerent military aircraft, however, is prohibited by article 40, 



132 REPORT COMMISSION OP JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

and account, must therefore be taken of the fact that it has now be- 
come the practice for warships to have a certain number of aircraft 
assigned to them and that these aircraft usually rest on board the 
warship. While they remain on board the warship they form part of 
it. and should be regarded as such from the point of view of the regu- 
lations issued by the neutral States. They will therefore be allowed 
to enter the neutral jurisdiction on the same footing as the warship 
on board which they rest, but they must remain on board the war- 
ship and must not commit any act which the warship is not allowed 
to commit. 

Article 41 

Aircraft on board vessels of war, including aircraft-carriers, shall be re- 
garded as part of such vessels. 

The principle is well established in land warfare that combatant 
forces of a belligerent must not penetrate within neutral jurisdiction. 
If they do, they are beyond the reach of their enemy: they have 
entered what is to them an asylum, and consequently, if after their 
visit to neutral territory they were allowed to re-enter hostilities, 
they would be making use of neutral territory to the detriment of 
their adversary. 

From this principle arises a duty, which is incumbent on all 
neutral States, to do what they can to prevent combatant forces from 
entering their jurisdiction, and to intern those which do. These 
principles are recognised and adopted for aerial warfare by article 
42. The obligation to intern covers also aircraft which were within 
the neutral jurisdiction at the outbreak of hostilities. 

Where aircraft and. their personnel are in distress and seek 
shelter in neutral territory, knowing that their fate will be intern- 
ment, or where the entry is due to the fact that the aircraft has lost 
its bearings or experienced engine trouble or run out of fuel, the 
neutral State is under no obligation to exclude them; it is, in fact, 
morally bound to admit them. This is due to the principle that 
those who are in distress must be succoured. The prohibition in the 
article is aimed at those who enter in violation of the rights of the 
neutral State. 

The prohibition on entry into neutral jurisdiction leads naturally 
to the further obligation incumbent upon neutral States to enforce 
compliance with the rule. It is beyond the power of any neutral 
State to ensure that no belligerent military aircraft will ever violate 
its neutrality; its obligation is limited to the employment of the 
means at its disposal, conforming in this respect to the phraseology 
employed in the Convention dealing with the Rights and Duties of 
Neutral Powers in Maritime War (No. XIII of 1907). 



NEUTRAL OBLIGATIONS 133 

The provision in the article is limited to military aircraft because 
it is only in respect of such craft that the prohibition on entry is 
absolute. Under article 12 the admission of private or public non- 
military aircraft is within the discretion of the neutral State. 
Where such aircraft penetrate within neutral jurisdiction in viola- 
tion of the measures prescribed by the neutral Power, they will be 
subject to such penalties as the neutral Power may enact; these may 
or may not include internment. Recognition of this fact has en- 
abled the Commission to omit a provision which figured as article 
11 in the American draft : 

A neutral Government may i ntern any aircraft of belligerent nationality 
not conforming to its regulations.^ 

The obligation on the part of the neutral Power to intern covers 
not only the aircraft, but its equipment and contents. The obligation 
is not affected by the circumstance which led to the military aircraft 
coming within the jurisdiction. It applies whether the belligerent 
aircraft entered neutral jurisdiction, voluntarily or involuntarily, 
and whatever the cause. It is an obligation owed to the opposing 
belligerent and is based upon the fact that the aircraft has come into 
an area where it is not subject to attack by its opponent. 

The only exceptions to the obligation to intern an aircraft are 
those arising under articles 17 and 41. The first relates to flying 
ambulances. Under the second, an aircraft on board a warship is 
deemed to be part of her, and therefore will follow the fate of that 
warship if she enters neutral ports or waters. If she enters under 
circumstances which render her immune from internment, such air- 
craft will likewise escape internment. 

The obligation to intern belligerent military aircraft entering 
neutral jurisdiction entails also the obligation to intern the personnel. 
These will in general be combatant members of the belligerent fight- 
ing forces, but experience has already shown that in time of war 
military aeroplanes are employed for transporting passengers. As 
it may safely be assumed that in time of war a passenger would not 
be carried on a belligerent military aircraft unless his journey was 
a matter of importance to the Government, it seems reasonable also 
to comprise such passengers in the category of persons to be interned. 

Article 42 

A neutral Government must use the means at its disposal to prevent the 
entry within its jurisdiction of belligerent military aircraft and to compel 
them to alight if they have entered such jurisdiction. 

A neutral Government shall use the means at its disposal to intern any 
belligerent military aircraft which is within its jurisdiction after having 
alighted for any reason whatsoever, together with its crew and the pas- 
sengers, if any. 



134 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

Under article 15 of the Convention for the adaptation of the prin- 
ciples of the Geneva Convention to Maritime War (No. X of 1907), 
the shipwrecked, wounded or sick members of the crew of a bel- 
ligerent warship, who are brought into a neutral port, must be 
interned. The same rule is applied by article 43 to the personnel of a 
disabled belligerent military aircraft, when the men are brought in 
on board a military aircraft. It goes without saying that such 
individuals could not be brought in and landed at a neutral port 
without the consent of the neutral authorities. 

Article 43 

The personnel of a disabled belligerent military aircraft rescued outside 
neutral waters and brought into the jurisdiction of a neutral State by a 
neutral military aircraft and there landed shall be interned. 

The principle is well established in international law that in time 
of war a Government, which remains neutral, must not itself supply 
to a belligerent Government arms or war material. For aerial war- 
fare effect is given to this principle by the following article : 

Article 44 

The supply in any manner, directly or indirectly, by a neutral Government 
to a belligerent Power of aircraft, parts of aircraft, or material, supplies or 
munitions required for aircraft is forbidden. 

No obligation rests on a neutral State to prevent the purchase by 
a belligerent Government of articles of contraband from persons 
within the neutral jurisdiction. The purchase of contraband under 
such conditions constitutes a commercial transaction which the 
neutral Government is under no obligation to prevent, although the 
opposing belligerent may take such means as international law 
authorises to intercept the delivery of the articles to his enemy. 
This principle has already been embodied in article 7 of the Conven- 
tion concerning the rights and duties of neutral Powers in land war 
(Convention V of 1907) and in article 7 of the corresponding con- 
vention for maritime war (Convention XIII of 1907). To apply it 
to aerial warfare, the following article has been adopted : 

Article 45 

Subject to the provisions of article 46, a neutral Power is not bound to 
prevent the export or transit on behalf of a belligerent of aircraft, parts of 
aircraft, or material, supplies or munitions for aircraft. 

An exception to the principle that a neutral State is under no 
obligation to prevent the export of arms and war material, is found 
in the accepted rule of international law that neutral territory must 
not be utilised as a base of operations by a belligerent Government, 
and that the neutral State must therefore prevent the fitting out or 



NEUTRAL OBLIGATIONS 135 

departure from its jurisdiction of any hostile expedition intended 
to operate on behalf of one belligerent against the other. Such an 
expedition might consist of a single aeroplane, if manned and 
equipped in a manner which would enable it to take part in hostili- 
ties, or carrying or accompanied by the necessary elements of such 
equipment. Consequently, its departure under circumstances which 
would constitute the despatch of a hostile expedition, must be pre- 
vented by the neutral Government. 

It is easy to see that it is aircraft which have flown out of the 
neutral jurisdiction, which are most likely to engage in hostilities 
in some form before delivery to the belligerent purchaser in the bel- 
ligerent State, and it is in these cases that the neutral Government 
must take special precautions. All risk will be avoided if the air- 
craft, despatched to the order of a belligerent Power, does not come 
within the neighbourhood of the operations of the opposing bellig- 
erent. The neutral State should therefore prescribe the route which 
the aircraft is to follow. This alone, however, will not be sufficient. 
The aircraft might ignore the instructions it receives. Guarantees 
for compliance must therefore be exacted. It will be for the neutral 
State to determine the guarantees which it thinks necessary, but they 
must be effective guarantees, such, for instance, as insisting on the 
aircraft carrying a representative of the Government to see that the 
route indicated is followed. 

To meet these requirements, the following article has been 
adopted : 

Abticle 46 

A neutral Government is bound to use the means at its disposal : 

1. To prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of an aircraft in a 

condition to make a hostile attack against a belligerent Power, or 
carrying or accompanied by appliances or materials the mounting 
or utilisation of which would enable it to make a hostile attack, if 
there is reason to believe that such aircraft is destined for use 
against a belligerent Power. 

2. To prevent the departure of an aircraft the crew of which includes 

any member of the combatant forces of a belligerent Power. 

3. To prevent work upon an aircraft designed to prepare it to depart in- 

contravention of the purposes of this article. 
On the departure by air of any aircraft despatched by persons or companies 
in neutral jurisdiction to the order of a belligerent Power, the neutral Gov- 
ernment must prescribe for such aircraft a route avoiding the neighbourhood 
of the military operations of the opposing belligerent, and must exact what- 
ever guarantees may be required to ensure that the aircraft follows the route 
prescribed. 

The height to which aircraft can ascend would enable them to b? 
used for observation purposes from a spot within neutral jurisdic- 
tion, i. e., within the airspace above neutral territory or territorial 
waters, if hostilities were in progress close to the frontier between 



136 REPORT COMMISSION OP JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

two States. Such proceedings might be extremely harmful to bellig- 
erent interests, and if the observations were made on behalf of one 
of the belligerents and for the purpose of supplying him with infor- 
mation, would amount to an improper use of neutral territory. To 
meet this contingency, the following provision has been adopted : 

Article 47 

A neutral State is bound to take such steps as the means at its disposal 
permit to prevent within its jurisdiction aerial observation of the movements, 
operations or defences of one belligerent, with the intention of informing the 
other belligerent. 

The prohibition of aerial observation within neutral territory on 
belligerent account must apply equally to the case of aircraft on 
board belligerent warships when in neutral waters. To avoid all 
misconception on this point, the following paragraph has been 
added : 

This provision applies equally to a belligerent military aircraft on board a 
vessel of war. 

The measures which a neutral Government may be obliged to take 
to compel respect for its rights may entail the use of force ; fire may 
have to be opened on foreign aircraft, even military aircraft of 
another State. Following the analogy of article 10 of Convention V 
of 1907 (Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Land War) and 
article 26 of Convention XIII (Rights and Duties of Neutral 
Powers in Maritime War), it has been thought well to declare that 
the measures, even of force, taken by a neutral Power for this pur- 
pose cannot be regarded as acts of war. Still less could they be re- 
garded as unfriendly acts, seeing that they are taken in specific 
exercise of rights conferred or recognised by treaty. 

It may be well to add that the neutral Government will not be 
responsible for any injury or damage done to the aircraft or other 
object. 

Article 48 

The action of a neutral Power in using force or other means at its disposal 
in the exercise of its rights or duties under these rules cannot be regarded as 
a hostile act. 

Chapter VII. Visit and Search, Capture and Condemnation 

Both the American and British drafts when first submitted to the 
Commission provided for the use of aircraft in exercising against 
enemy commerce the belligerent rights which international law has 
sanctioned. This principle has not met with unanimous acceptance ; 
the Netherlands Delegation has not felt able to accept it. The stand- 



VISIT AND SEAECH 137 

point adopted by this Delegation is that the custom and practice of 
international law is limited to a right on the part of belligerent war- 
ships to capture after certain formalities merchant vessels employed 
in the carriage of such commerce. No justification exists for the 
extension of those rights to an aircraft, which is a new engine of war 
entirely different in character from a warship and unable to exercise 
over merchant vessels or private aircraft a control similar to that 
exercised by a warship over merchant vessels. Consequently there 
is no reason to confer on a military aircraft the right to make captures 
as if it were a warship, and no reason to subject commerce to capture 
when carried in an aircraft. In developing international law the 
tendency should be in the direction of conferring greater, not less, 
immunity on private property. 

For these reasons the Netherlands Delegation has not accepted 
the rules contained in Chapter VII and its participation in the dis- 
cussion of individual rules has been subject to the general reserves 
made with regard to the whole chapter. 

The majority of the delegations have not felt able to reject the 
principle that the aircraft should be allowed to exercise the bellig- 
erent right to visit and search, followed by capture where necessary 
for the repression of enemy commerce carried in an aircraft in cases 
where such action is permissible. This principle is embodied in 
article 49, of which the text is as follows : 

Article 49 

Private aircraft are liable to visit and search and to capture by belligerent 
military aircraft. 

No article on the subject of the exercise by belligerent military 
aircraft of the right of visit and search of merchant vessels has se- 
cured the votes of a majority of the Delegations, and therefore no 
article on the subject is included in the code of rules. Nevertheless, 
all the Delegations are impressed with the necessity of surrounding 
with proper safeguards the use of aircraft against merchant vessels. 
Otherwise excesses analogous to those which took place during the 
recent war might be reproduced in future wars. 

The reason why no agreed text has been adopted by the Commis- 
sion is due to divergence of view as to what action an aircraft should 
be permitted to take against a merchant vessel. 

The aircraft in use to-day are light and fragile things. Except 
in favourable circumstances they would not be able to alight on the 
water and send a man on board a merchant vessel at the spot where 
the merchant vessel is first encountered (visit e sur place). To make 
the right of visit and search by an aircraft effective it would usually 



138 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

be necessary to direct the merchant vessel to come to some con- 
venient locality where the aircraft can alight and send men on board 
for the purpose. This would imply a right on the part of the bellig- 
erent military aircraft to compel the merchant vessel to deviate 
from her course before it was in possession of any proofs derived 
from an examination of the ship herself and her papers that there 
were circumstances of suspicion which justified such interference 
with neutral trade. If the deviation which the merchant vessel was 
obliged to make was prolonged, as might be the case if the aircraft 
was operating far from land, the losses and inconvenience imposed 
on neutral shipping would be very heavy. 

Is or is not a warship entitled to oblige a merchant vessel to devi- 
ate from her course for the purpose of enabling the right of visit 
and search to be carried out? Would an aircraft be exercising its 
rights in conformity with the rules to which surface warships are 
subject if it obliged a merchant vessel to deviate from her course in 
this way? Even if a warship is entitled on occasion to oblige a 
merchant vessel to deviate from her course before visiting her, can a 
similar right be recognised for military aircraft without opening the 
door to very great abuses? 

These are the questions upon which the views entertained by the 
Delegations differed appreciably, and indicate the reasons why it was 
not found possible to devise any text on which all parties could agree. 

The French Delegation declared that aircraft must conform to the 
rules to which surface warships are subject. 
— - The French Delegation proposed the following text : 

Aircraft are forbidden to operate against merchant vessels, whether surface 
or submarine, without conforming to the rules to which surface warships are 
subject. 

— In view of the differences of opinion manifested in regard to the 
above questions, the Delegation regarded this formula as the only 
one which was likely to receive the support of a majority of the Com- 
mission. 

-" The American Delegation considered that a merchant vessel 
should be boarded when she is encountered, but maintained that, 
even if a departure from this rule might in exceptional circumstances 
be permitted in visit and search by surface ships, a similar concession 
to aircraft, with their limited means of boarding, would readily have 
the effect of converting the exception into the rule. They stated 
that they were not advised of anything in the record of the Washing- 
ton Conference showing an intention to authorise surface ships or 
submarines to divert merchant vessels, without boarding them, to a 
port for examination ; but that, were the case otherwise, the 
Washington Conference had decided that the subject of aircraft, 
which presented difficulties of its own and which might involve 



RULES FOR VISIT AND SEARCH 139 

questions different from those pertaining even to submarines,'should 
be dealt with separately; and that to permit aircraft, with their 
rapidity and range of flight, to control and direct by orders enforce- 
able by bombing, and without visit and search, the movement of 
merchant vessels on the high seas would, in their opinion, give rise 
to an inadmissible situation. 

The American Delegation, therefore, proposed the following text : 

Aircraft are forbidden to visit and search surface or subsurface vessels 
without conforming in all respects to the rules to which surface vessels au- 
thorized to conduct visit and search are subject. 

In view of the irregularities to which the use of aircraft against merchant 
vessels might give rise, it is declared that aircraft cannot divert a merchant 
vessel from its course without first boarding it ; that in no event may an air- 
craft destroy a merchant vessel unless the crew and passengers of such vessel 
have first been placed in safety; and that if an aircraft cannot capture a 
merchant vessel in conformity with these rules it must desist from attack and 
from seizure and permit such vessel to proceed unmolested. 

The British Delegation maintained that the problem connected 
with visit and search of merchant vessels by aircraft was analogous 
to that of the exercise of such right by submarines, and that the most 
satisfactory solution of the problem would be to apply mutatis 
mutandis the wording of article 1 of the Treaty signed at Washing- 
ton on the 6th February, 1922, for the protection of the lives of 
neutrals and non-combatants at sea in time of war. 

This Delegation maintained that by using the language of that 
treaty, as proposed, the question of the right to oblige a merchant 
vessel to deviate to a reasonable extent would be solved because the 
wording adopted at Washington had been modified so as to admit this 
right. The British Delegates proposed the following text : 

The use of aircraft against merchant vessels must be regulated by the fol- 
lowing provisions, which, being in conformity with the rules adopted by civil- 
ised nations for the protection of the lives of neutrals and non-combatants at 
sea in time of war, are to be deemed an established part of international 
law: — 

A merchant vessel must be ordered to submit to visit and search to determine 
its character before it can be seized. 

A merchant vessel must not be attacked unless it refuses to submit to visit 
and search after warning or to proceed as directed after seizure. 

A merchant vessel must not be destroyed unless the crew and passengers have 
first been placed in safety. 

Belligerent aircraft are not under any circumstances exempt from the univer- 
sal rules above stated ; and if an aircraft cannot capture a merchant vessel in 
conformity with these rules, the existing law of nations requires it to desist 
from attack and from seizure and to permit the merchant vessel to proceed 
unmolested. 

The Japanese view was based on the practical difficulty in the 
way of exercise of the right of visit and search by aircraft. Visit and 
search is a necessary preliminary to capture, and unless an aircraft 



140 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

is physically capable of carrying it out, the recognition of the right of 
military aircraft to conduct operations against merchant vessels may 
lead to a recurrence of the excesses practised against enemy and 
neutral merchant vessels in the submarine campaign initiated during 
the recent war. Therefore, the Japanese Delegation preferred not 
to recognise the right at all. But, in the end, as the amended 
American text 24 removed the greater part of their fear of possible 
abuse, they expressed readiness to accept it, and suggested at the 
same time that the text had better be completed by the addition of 
the last sentence of the British text. 

The Italian Delegation accepted the British point of view; it 
maintained that diversion of merchant vessels by surface warships 
was recognised and that the wording of the Washington Treaty 
should be repeated. To prevent any abusive exercise of the right bj r 
aircraft, the Italian Delegation proposed to add the following sen- 
tences to the paragraphs of the Washington Treaty as set out in the 
British text : 

After the first paragraph add — 

Visit must in general be carried out where the merchant vessel is first en* 
countered. Nevertheless, in cases where it may be impossible to alight and 
there is at the same time good ground for suspicion, the aircraft may order 
the merchant vessel to deviate to a suitable locality, reasonably accessible, 
where she may be visited. If no good cause for this action is shown, the bel- 
ligerent State must pay compensation for the loss caused by the order to 
deviate. 

After the third paragraph add — 

If the merchant vessel is in the territorial waters of the enemy State and 
not on the high seas, she may be destroyed after previous notice has been given 
to the persons on board to put themselves in a place of safety and reasonable- 
time has been given them for so doing. 

The Italian Delegation also intimated that for the sake of arriving 
at an agreement, it would vote in favour of the French text given 
above. In accepting it, however, it declared : ( 1 ) that in the existing 
practice of maritime war the majority of European Powers admitted 
that, if visit on the spot where the merchant vessel was encountered 
was impossible, surface warships are entitled to oblige merchant 
vessels to deviate to a suitable spot where the visit can take place; 
(2) that, even if it is not desired to rest on the maritime practice 
indicated above, the Italian Delegation must maintain the right of 
belligerent aircraft to exercise the right of visit in accordance with 
the texts of the amendments proposed. 

The Netherlands Delegation accepted the American proposal as 
the one which limited most narrowly the exercise of belligerent 
rights by aircraft. 

21 See Minute 105. 



VOTE ON VISIT AND SEARCH 141 

When put to the vote the American proposal was supported by the 
Japanese and Netherlands Delegations and opposed by the British, 
French and Italian. The French proposal was opposed by the 
American, British, Japanese and Netherlands Delegations. The 
British and Italian Delegations explained that they could only 
support it if it was amplified in the way indicated in the British 
and Italian amendments. 

Although all the Delegations concurred in the expression of a 
desire to adopt such rules as would assure the observance of the 
dictates of humanity as regards the protection of the lives of neutrals 
and non-combatants, the Commission, by reason of a divergence of 
views as to the method by which this result would best be attained, 
was unable to agree upon an article dealing with the exercise of 
belligerent rights by aircraft against merchant vessels. The code of 
rules proposed by the Commission therefore leaves the matter open 
for future regulation. 

While aircraft are in flight in the air, the operation of visit and 
search cannot be effected so long as aircraft retain their present 
form. Article 49 therefore necessitates the recognition of a right 
on the part of belligerent military aircraft to order non-military 
aircraft to alight in order that the right of visit and search may be 
exercised. They must not only be ordered to alight, but they must 
be allowed to proceed to a suitable locality for the purpose. It 
would be a hardship to the neutral if he was obliged to make a long 
journey for this purpose and the locality must, therefore, not only 
be suitable, but must be reasonably accessible — that is, reasonably 
convenient of access. A more precise definition than^ this can 
scarcely be given ; what is reasonably convenient of access is a ques- 
tion of fact to be determined in each case in the light of the special 
circumstances which may be present. If no place can be found 
which is reasonably convenient of access, the aircraft should be 
allowed to continue its flight. 

As is the case with merchant vessels, a refusal to comply with 
such belligerent directions will expose the aircraft to the use of force 
for the purpose of insisting on compliance. Just as the belligerent 
right has received universal acceptance in maritime war, so is the 
principle admitted that the neutral vessel is under a duty to submit 
to it and if in consequence of her failure to do so she is damaged or 
sunk, she has no right to complain, seeing that she has failed to 
comply with an obligation imposed upon her by the law of nations. 
This principle does not, however, entitle a belligerent to apply force 
unnecessarily. His measures of coercion must be limited to what is 
reasonably required to secure the fulfilment of his object. 

It is for this reason that a warship always fires a shot across the 
bow of a vessel before attempting to hit the vessel herself, and, even 




142 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

when obliged to fire at the vessel herself, must still take all measures 
within her power to rescue the crew and passengers. Recognition of 
a similar right on the part of aircraft to apply force must be con- 
ditioned by the obligation on the part of the aircraft not to apply 
force to a greater extent than is necessary. It would be so easy for 
the aircraft to take measures which might at once entail the destruc- 
tion of the aircraft and the loss of life of everybody therein that it 
is essential to recognise the principle that force must only be em- 
ployed to the extent which is reasonably necessary. 

Article 50 

Belligerent military aircraft have the right to order public non-military and 
private aircraft to alight in or proceed for visit and search to a suitable 
locality reasonably accessible. 

Refusal, after warning, to obey such orders to alight or to proceed to such 
a locality for examination exposes an aircraft to the risk of being fired upon. 

The next article deals with the position of a neutral public non- 
military aircraft. The future of commercial aviation may involve 
the establishment of State-owned lines of aircraft for commercial 
purposes. The principle has already been recognised that such air- 
craft must be treated upon the same footing as private aircraft. 
Their subjection to the exercise of the right of visit and search and 
capture must, therefore, be assured. Where public non-military 
aircraft are not used for commercial purposes, the general rule must 
apply according to which a belligerent warship can only visit the 
public vessels of a friendly Power so far as may be necessary for the 
purpose of ascertaining their character, i. e., by the verification of 
their papers. 

Article 51 

Neutral public non-military aircraft, other than those which are to be 
treated as private aircraft, are subject only to visit for the purpose of the 
verification of their papers. 

Article 52 applies to aircraft in time of war the principle which 
already obtains in the case of merchant vessels, namely, that an 
enemy merchant vessel is liable to capture in all circumstances. 

Article 52 

Enemy private aircraft are liable to capture in all circumstances. 

The next article deals with the grounds upon which a neutral 
private aircraft may be captured. 

(a) The first is where it resists the legitimate exercise of bellig- 
erent rights. This is in harmony with article 63 of the Declaration 
of London. As first submitted to the Commission, the text included 



GROUNDS FOR CAPTURE 143 

the words "or flees." On due consideration, however, these words 
were omitted. The reasons for this omission cannot be stated better 
than is done in the report on article 63 of the Declaration of London, 
prepared by M. Eenault : 

If the vessel is stopped, and it is shown that it was only in order to escape 
the inconvenience of being searched that recourse was had to flight, and that 
beyond this she had done nothing contrary to neutrality, she will not be pun- 
ished for her attempt at flight. If, on the other hand, it is established that 
the vessel has contraband on board, or that she has in some way or other 
failed to comply with her duty as a neutral, she will suffer the consequences 
of her infraction of neutrality, but in this case, as in the last, she will not 
undergo any punishment for her attempt at flight. Expression was given to 
the contrary view, namely, that a ship should be punished for an obvious 
attempt at flight as much as for forcible resistance. It was suggested that 
the prospect of having the escaping vessel condemned as good prize would 
influence the captain of the cruiser to do his best to spare her. But in the 
end this view did not prevail. 

(b) The second ground for capture is that of the failure of a 
neutral aircraft to comply with directions given by a belligerent 
commanding officer enjoining the withdrawal of neutral aircraft 
from the immediate vicinity of his military operations. By the* 
terms of article 30, a neutral aircraft disregarding such a prohibi- 
tion is exposed to the risk of being fired upon. It might well be 
thought that such risk would involve a sufficient deterrent without 
rendering non-compliance a ground of capture. The reason why 
capture has been added is due to the peculiar circumstances of war- 
fare in the air. The right to oblige aircraft to avoid the scene of 
military operations would only be made use of in cases where it 
was a matter of importance to the belligerent to ensure their ab- 
sence, and consequently where effective measures must be taken to 
secure compliance. If a neutral private aircraft is to be fired upon 
for this purpose, it is desirable to render it as little likely as possible 
that it shall be fired upon in a way that will involve its destruction. 
If the airman knows that the aircraft, when forced to alight, may 
be made the subject of capture, he is less tempted to secure obser- 
vance of the rule by firing in a way which will involve the destruc- 
tion of the aircraft. 

(c) The third ground for capture is where the aircraft is en- 
gaged in unneutral service. This phrase " unneutral service " formed 
the subject of careful consideration in the Naval Conference of 
London in 1908 and 1909, at the time when the Declaration of 
London was framed. The meaning attached to the term by the 
Commission in the preparation of the present text is that used in 
articles 45 and 46 of that Declaration, the intention being to render 
those articles applicable in the case of similar action on the part 
of aircraft. For instance, it will cover an act amounting to taking 



144 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

a direct part in hostilities, such as that mentioned in the second 
paragraph of article 16. The Commission would also refer to that 
portion of the Report on the Declaration of London which deals 
with unneutral service (articles 45 and 46) as they are in entire 
concurrence with it. 

(d) The fourth ground for capture is that a neutral private air- 
craft is armed in violation of article 16, which stipulates that out- 
side its own jurisdiction a private aircraft must not be armed. The 
carriage of arms by a private aircraft under such circumstances 
gives rise to a well-founded suspicion of an intention to take part 
in hostilities in violation of the laws of war. 

(e) The fifth ground for capture "is that an aircraft has no marks 
or is bearing false marks in violation of article 19. 

(/) The sixth ground for capture is the absence or irregularity 
of the papers of the aircraft. This rule is in accordance with that 
which prevails in maritime warfare. The papers which must be 
carried are indicated with greater precision in article 54. 

(g) The seventh ground for capture is that of an aircraft being 
found manifestly out of the proper line of its flight as indicated 
by its papers and where no sufficient reason is found for its pres- 
ence in that locality. The importance of this rule from the point 
of view of aerial warfare is due to the ease with which aircraft can 
be used for reconnaisance work, even though they may be masquerad- 
ing as neutral aircraft engaged on innocent occupations. It may 
well be that in any particular case the aircraft will be able to estab- 
lish the innocence of its presence. It may have been blown out of 
its course; it may have been compelled to make a deviation to secure 
supplies; it may even have intentionally deviated for the purpose 
of avoiding an area in which it considered that military operations 
were possible. It is therefore to the interests of both parties — the 
belligerent and the neutral — that ample opportunity for enquiry 
should be given to the belligerent before exercising his right of 
capture. It will only be where the results of such investigations show 
that there is good cause for suspicion that the aircraft was engaged 
in some improper operations that capture will be resorted to. 

(h) The eighth ground for capture is where the neutral private 
aircraft carries, or itself constitutes, contraband of war. This sub- 
head is framed upon the basis that the term "contraband of war" 
will bear the same meaning as it has in maritime warfare. 

(i) The ninth ground for capture is that the aircraft is engaged 
in a breach of blockade. " Blockade " is here used in the same sense 
in which it is employed in Chapter 1 of the Declaration of London, 
that is to say, an operation of war for the purpose of preventing by 
the use of warships ingress or egress of commerce to or from a de- 
fined portion of the enemy's coast. It has no reference to a blockade 



AERIAL BLOCKADE 145 

enforced without the use of warships, nor does it cover military in- 
vestments of particular localities on land. These operations, which 
may be termed " aerial blockade," were the subject of special exami- 
nation by the experts attached to the various Delegations, who 
framed a special report on the subject for consideration by the Full 
Commission. The conditions contemplated in this sub-head are 
those of warships enforcing a blockade at sea with aircraft acting in 
co-operation with them. As the primary elements of the blockade 
will, therefore, be maritime, the recognised principles applicable to 
such blockade, as for instance, that it must be effective (Declaration 
of Paris, article 4) , and that it must be duly notified and its precise 
limits fixed, will also apply. This is intended to be shown by the 
use of the words "breach of blockade duly established and effec- 
tively maintained "in the text of the sub-head. 

It is too early yet to indicate with precision the extent to which 
the co-operation of aircraft in the maintenance of blockade at sea 
may be possible; experience alone can show. Nevertheless, it is 
necessary to indicate the sense in which the Commission has used 
the word " effective." As pointed out in the Declaration of London, 
the effectiveness of a blockade is a question of fact. The word 
"effective" is intended to ensure that it must be maintained by a 
force sufficient really to prevent access to the enemy coast-line. The 
prize court may, for instance, have to consider what proportion of 
surface vessels can escape the watchfulness of the blockading squad- 
rons without endangering the effectiveness of the blockade; this 
is a question which the prize court alone can determine. In the 
same way, this question may have to be considered where aircraft are 
co-operating in the maintenance of a blockade. 

The invention of the aircraft cannot impose upon a belligerent 
who desires to institute a blockade the obligation to employ aircraft 
in co-operation with his naval forces. If he does not do so, the 
effectiveness of the blockade would not be affected by failure to stop 
aircraft passing through. It is only where the belligerent endeavours 
to render his blockade effective in the air-space above the sea as well 
as on the surface itself that captures of aircraft will be made and that 
any question of the effectiveness of the blockade in the air could 
arise. 

The facility with which an aircraft, desirous of entering the block- 
aded area, could evade the blockade by passing outside the geograph- 
ical limits of the blockade has not escaped the attention of the 
Commission. This practical question may affect the extent to which X 
belligerents will resort to blockade in future, but it does not affect I 
the fact that where a blockade has been established and an aircraft 
attempts to pass through into the blockaded area^within the limits 
of the blockade, it should be liable to capture. 



146 BEPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

The Netherlands Delegation proposed to suppress (i) on the 
grounds that air blockade could not be effectively maintained, bas- 
ing its opinion on its interpretation of the experts' report on the 
subject. 

The British, French, Italian and Japanese Delegations voted for 
its maintenance. The American Delegation voted for its mainte- 
nance ad referendum. 

(k) The tenth ground for capture is that the private aircraft has 
been transferred from belligerent to neutral nationality with a view 
to escaping the disadvantages which enemy status confers upon air- 
craft. This sub-head has been inserted in order that so far as pos- 
sible the rules applicable to maritime warfare should apply to war- 
fare in the air. 

The sub-head as adopted does not embody the detailed provisions 
of the Declaration of London (articles 55 and 56) because those 
articles constituted a compromise between two competing principles 
and have not stood the test of experience. 

The sub-heads enumerated above comprise those which the Com- 
mission has considered sufficient to justify capture. Experience may 
show that other cases will arise in which capture may be necessary, 
as great development may yet occur in the science of aviation. 

The article concludes with a proviso that the act which constitutes 
the ground of capture must have occurred in the course of the flight 
in which the neutral aircraft came into belligerent hands. This 
proviso would not, of course, apply to the case of transfer from bel- 
ligerent to neutral nationality. 

Account must also be taken of the special case provided for in 
article 6 of the rules for the control of radio in time of war under 
which merchant vessels or aircraft transmitting intelligence may in 
certain circumstances be liable to capture for a period of one year 
from the commission of the act complained of. 

Article 53 

A neutral private aircraft is liable to capture if it— 

(a) Resists the legitimate exercise of belligerent rights. 
(Z>) Violates a prohibition of which it has had notice issued by a bel- 
ligerent commanding officer under article *V). 

(c) Is engaged in unneutral service. 

(d) Is armed in time of war when outside the jurisdiction of its own 

country. 

(e) Has no external marks or uses false marks. 

(f) Has no papers or insufficient or irregular papers. 

(g) Is manifestly out of the line between the point of departure and the 

point of destination indicated in its papers and after such enquiries 

as the belligerent may deem necessary, no good cause is shown for 

the deviation. The aircraft, together with its crew and pas- 



AIRCRAFT PAPERS 147 

sengers, if any, may be detained by the belligerent, pending such 
enquiries. 
(h) Carries, or itself constitutes, contraband of war. 
(i) Is engaged in breach of a blockade duly established and effectively 

maintained. 
(7c) Has been transferred from belligerent to neutral nationality at a 
date and in circumstances indicating an intention of evading the 
consequences to which an enemy aircraft, as such, is exposed. 
Provided that in each case (except (k) ) the ground for capture shall be an 
act carried out in the flight in which the neutral aircraft came into belligerent 
hands, i. e., since it left its point of departure and before it reached its point 
of destination. 

By custom and tradition practical uniformity has arisen as to the 
papers which a merchant vessel is expected to carry. There is no 
serious divergence between the legislation now, in force in civilised 
countries. No practical inconvenience, therefore, arises in the appli- 
cation of the established rule of maritime war, that a vessel is liable 
to capture if it has no papers or if the papers are irregular. Similar 
mniformity would no doubt in time arise in connection with aircraft, 
particularly if the Air Navigation Convention of 1919 becomes 
universal. It has, however, been thought prudent to indicate in a 
special article the facts which the papers found on board an aircraft 
must indicate if its papers are to be held sufficient. Under article 6 
the papers to be borne by an aircraft are those prescribed by the laws 
of its own State. The forms, names and number of such papers are 
therefore a matter to be determined by each State except so far as it 
may already be bound by treaty stipulations. Article 54 prescribes 
the points that must be established by such papers, that is to say, it 
ensures that the papers shall give the belligerent information on the 
points which it is important for him to know. They must show the 
nationality of the aircraft, the names and nationality of the crew 
and the passengers, the points of departure and destination of the 
flight, particulars of the cargo, and must include the necessary logs. 
The legislation in force in each State must be sufficient to satisfy 
this rule if it desires that its aircraft shall escape trouble in time of 
war. It is not thought that this article will involve any incon- 
venience, as legislation which would not prescribe at least as much 
as the above on the subject of aircraft is unlikely to be enacted by any 
State. 

Article 54 

The papers of a private aircraft will be regarded as insufficient or irregular 
If they do not establish the nationality of the aircraft and indicate the names 
and nationality of the crew and passengers, the points of departure and destina- 
tion of the flight, together with particulars of the cargo and the conditions 
under which it is transported. The logs must, also be included. 



148 REPORT COMMISSION OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

The practice has now become universal for belligerent States to 
institute a prize court in which proceedings will take place for adjudi- 
cating on all cases of capture of ships or goods effected in maritime 
war. It is in the interest of neutrals that this system has been 
developed. If aircraft are to be allowed to exercise the belligerent 
right of capture, it is only proper that the same protection should be 
accorded to neutrals as in the case of captures effected by warships. 
This view has readily obtained unanimous assent, and is embodied 
in article 55. 

Article 55 

Capture of an aircraft or of goods on board an aircraft snail be made the 
subject of prize proceedings, in order that any neutral claim may be duly heard 
and determined. 

The provisions of articles 52 and 53 deal only with the grounds 
for capture. They do not prescribe the rule which is to be applied 
by the prize court. Reflection has led the Commission to the view 
that, save in certain exceptional cases where aircraft will have been 
captured for reasons peculiar to aerial warfare, the decisions of the 
prize courts in adjudicating on captures effected by aircraft, should 
proceed on the same principles as those which obtain in captures by 
warships. If the jurisdiction of the prize courts is to apply in aerial 
warfare as well as in maritime warfare, it is convenient that the rules 
applied should be the same in both cases. It would be impossible to 
frame an exact code, at the present stage, of the rules which prize 
courts apply, nor indeed would it be within the competence of this 
Commission to do so as far as concerns maritime warfare. It would 
certainly lead to divergence between rules applied in the case of 
aerial captures and those applied in the case of maritime captures. 
The simplest solution has therefore been found in the adoption of the 
principle that the prize court should apply the same rules in both 
cases. 

The special cases which have to be provided for are those where 
an aircraft has no marks or has used false marks, or has been found 
armed in time of war outside the jurisdiction of its own country, and 
also in the case where a neutral aircraft has violated the rule that it 
must not infringe the directions of the belligerent commanding 
officer to keep away from the immediate vicinity of his military 
operations. In these cases it is agreed that the aircraft should be 
liable to condemnation. 

Article 56 

A private aircraft captured upon the ground that it has no external marks 
or is using false marks, or that it is armed in time of war outside the juris- 
diction of its own country, is liable to condemnation. 



DESTRUCTION 149 

A neutral private aircraft captured upon the ground that it has disregarded 
the direction of a belligerent commanding officer under article 30 is liable to 
condemnation, unless it can justify its presence within the prohibited zone. 

In all other cases, the prize court in adjudicating upon any case of capture 
of an aircraft or its cargo, or of postal correspondence on board an aircraft, 
shall apply the same rules as would be applied to a merchant vessel or its cargo 
or to postal correspondence on board a merchant vessel. 

The destruction of neutral merchant vessels first came into promi- 
nence as a belligerent practice at the time of the Russo-Japanese 
War. It was not without difficulty that an agreement was reached 
between the Powers as to the extent to which the practice should be 
recognised in maritime war. In the case of enemy vessels, the 
practice has always been recognised as legitimate, subject to the over- 
riding principle that the persons on board must be placed in safety 
and the papers of the vessel must be secured. This principle has 
been adapted to aerial warfare by article 57, of which the text is as 
follows: 

Article 57 

Private aircraft which are found upon visit and search to be enemy aircraft 
may be destroyed if the belligerent commanding officer finds it necessary to do 
so, provided that all persons on board have first been placed in safety and all 
the papers of the aircraft have been preserved. 

The articles dealing with the destruction of neutral aircraft are 
largely based upon the provisions of the Declaration of London, but 
the language used is of a more restrictive character, so as to reduce 
the possibilities of an abuse of the practice, as happened in the late 
war. Destruction is limited to cases where an aircraft is captured in 
circumstances which show that it would be liable to condemnation on 
the ground of unneutral service, or on the ground that it has no 
marks or bears false marks. Apart from these cases, destruction can 
only be justified by the existence of grave military emergencies 
which would not justify the officer in command in releasing the air- 
craft. In all cases, destruction must be justified by the circumstance 
that sending the aircraft in for adjudication would be impossible, or 
would imperil the safety of the belligerent aircraft or the success of 
the operations in which it is engaged. 

Article 58 

Private aircraft which are found upon visit and search to be neutral aircraft 
liable to condemnation upon the ground of unneutral service, or upon the 
ground that they have no external marks or are bearing false marks, may be 
destroyed, if sending them in for adjudication would be impossible or would 
imperil the safety of the belligerent aircraft or the success of the operations in 
'which it is engaged. Apart from the cases mentioned above, a neutral private 
aircraft must not be destroyed except in the gravest military emergency, which 
would not justify the officer in command in releasing it or sending it in for 
adjudication. 



150 REPORT COMMISSION" OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

The safeguards designed to ensure full protection for neutral 
interests in the case of any such destruction are embodied in article 
59. The persons on board must be placed in safety. The papers 
must be secured in order that they may be available in the forthcom- 
ing prize court proceedings. The captor must then bring the case- 
before the prize court and must establish, firstly, the need for de- 
struction, and, secondly, when that is established, the validity of the- 
capture. Failure to establish the first point will expose him to the 
risk of paying compensation to all the parties interested in the air- 
craft and its cargo. Failure to establish the second will place him in 
the same position in which he would be if the aircraft had not been 
destroyed, and he had been ordered to make restitution of the air- 
craft or cargo improperly captured. 

Article 59 

Before a neutral private aircraft is destroyed, all persons on board must be 
placed in safety, and all the papers of the aircraft must be preserved. 

A captor who has destroyed a neutral private aircraft must bring the cap- 
ture before the prize court, and must first establish that he was justified in de- 
stroying it under article 58. If he fails to do this, parties interested in the air- 
craft or its cargo are entitled to compensation. If the capture is held to be in- 
valid, though the act of destruction is held to have been justifiable, compensa- 
tion must be paid to the parties interested in place of the restitution to which 
they would have been entitled. 

The special case of the destruction of contraband on board an 
aircraft, apart from the destruction of the aircraft itself, is dealt 
with in article 60, which proceeds on lines similar to article 54 of the 
Declaration of London. After the contraband has been destroyed, 
the aircraft will be allowed to continue its flight. Similar provision 
is made for the protection of neutral interests as under the preceding 
articles. 

The article as adopted is limited to absolute contraband, but three 
Delegations considered that the word " absolute " should be deleted, 
and that the article should extend to all forms of contraband, as in 
article 54 of the Declaration of London. 

Article 60 

Where a neutral private aircraft is captured on the ground that it is carrying 
contraband, the capter may demand the surrender of any absolute contraband 
on board, or may proceed to the destruction of such absolute contraband, if 
sending in the aircraft for adjudication is impossible or would imperil the 
safety of the belligerent aircraft or the success of the operations in which it is 
engaged. After entering in the log book of the aircraft the delivery or destruc- 
tion of the goods, and securing, in original or copy, the relevant papers of the 
aircraft, the captor must allow the neutral aircraft to continue its flight. 

The provisions of the second paragraph of Article 59 will apply where abso- 
lute contraband on board a neutral private aircraft is handed over or destroyed. 



DEFINITIONS 151 

Chapter VIII. Definitions 

In some countries, the word " military " is not generally employed 
in a sense which includes "naval." To remove any ambiguity on 
this point a special article has been adopted. 

Article 61 

The term "military" throughout these rules is to be read as referring to all 
branches of the forces, i. e., the land forces, the naval forces and the air 
forces. 

Article 62 is intended to remove all risk of doubt as to whether 
aircraft personnel should, in matters not covered by these rules or 
by conventions as to the application of which there can be no doubt, 
be governed by the Land Warfare Regulations or by the unwritten 
rules governing maritime war. The rules to be applied are those 
contained in the Land Warfare Regulations. Regard must be had 
to the last paragraphs of the Convention to which the Land Warfare 
Regulations are attached, that cases not provided for are not in- 
tended, for want of a written prohibition, to be left to the arbitrary 
judgment of military commanders. In all such cases the population 
and belligerents are to remain under the protection of the rule of the 
principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages estab- 
lished between civilised nations, from the laws of humanity and the 
requirements of the public conscience. 

The French Delegation expressed the opinion that the terms of 
article 62 were hardly adequate to cover a subject so complex. 

Article 62 

Except so far as special rules are here laid down and except also so far as 
the provisions of Chapter VII of these Rules or international conventions indi- 
cate that maritime law and procedure are applicable, aircraft personnel en- 
gaged in hostilities come under the laws of war and neutrality applicable to 
land troops in virtue of the custom and practice of international law and of the 
various declarations and conventions to which the States concerned are parties. 

JURISDICTION 

The British draft code contained an article (No. 9) stipulating 
that for the purpose of the proposed rules, territory over which a 
Power exercises a protectorate or a mandate, and also protected 
States, should be assimilated to the national territory of that Power. 
The Japanese Delegation drew attention to the necessity of providing 
also for the case of leased territories if any such article were adopted. 
Throughout the articles adopted the word "jurisdiction" is used. 
The Commission has considered the question whether it is necessary 
to add a definition of the word "jurisdiction," and has come to the 
conclusion that it would be better not to do so. The area within 
which each State is responsible is well understood; no difficulty of 



152 REPORT COMMISSION" OF JURISTS, RADIO AND AIRCRAFT 

this sort arises in practice; and no inconvenience has been caused 
by the absence of any such definition from Convention No. XIII, of 
1907, in which the word " jurisdiction " is used in a manner very 
similar to that in which it is used in the present rules. 

MARGINAL TERRITORIAL AIR BELT 

An interesting proposal was made by the Italian Delegation that 
along the coast of every State the national jurisdiction in the air- 
space should for aerial purposes extend to 10 miles. The proposal 
did not comprise any extension of territorial waters generally, a 
matter which would have been outside the reference to the Commis- 
sion under the terms of the Washington Resolution. 

Detailed consideration of the proposal led the majority of the 
delegations to think that the suggestion is not practicable. 

It seems inevitable that great confusion would follow from any 
rule which laid down a different width for the territorial airspace 
from that recognised for territorial waters, more particularly in the 
case of neutral countries for whose benefit and protection the pro- 
posal is put forward. As an example it is only necessary to take 
article 42, which obliges a neutral State to endeavour to compel a 
belligerent military aircraft entering its jurisdiction to alight. If 
the aircraft entered the jurisdiction from over the high seas, it would 
do so at 10 miles from the coast, and if in compliance with neutral 
orders it forthwith alighted on the water, it would then be outside 
the neutral jurisdiction, and the neutral State could not intern the 
aircraft. 

On principle it would seem that the jurisdiction in the airspace 
should be appurtenant to the territorial jurisdiction enjoyed beneath 
it, and that in the absence of a territorial jurisdiction beneath, there 
is no sound basis for jurisdiction in the air. 

Furthermore, it is felt that the obligation to enforce respect for 
neutral rights throughout a 10-mile belt would impose an increased 
burden on neutral Powers without adequate compensating advan- 
tages. Even with this wider belt it would still be easy for airmen 
fighting in the air to lose their bearings in the heat of the combat, 
and to encroach inadvertently on neutral jurisdiction. Lastly, the 
greater the distance from the coast, the more difficult it is for the 
position of an aircraft to be determined with precision, and the more 
frequent, therefore, will disputes become between belligerent and 
neutral States as to violation by the former's aircraft of the latter's 
jurisdiction. 

With a view to meeting these criticisms, the Italian Delegation 
recast the proposal in a different shape, and suggested that in time of 
war a State, whether neutral or belligerent, should be authorized, 
if it so desired, and if it notified other Powers accordingly at the 



MARGINAL AIRBELT 153 

beginning of the war, to extend its jurisdiction over the marginal air- 
belt to a distance of 10 miles at any given places along its coast. In 
this form the proposal would have placed no burden upon neutrals, 
because they would not have made use of it unless they considered 
it to their advantage. The anomalies of the divergent widths of the 
marginal air-belt and the marginal belt of sea would have remained. 

After due consideration of the proposal, the majority of the Dele- 
gations felt unable to accept the proposal even in its amended form. 

The Italian Delegation made the following statement : 

1. It does not think it desirable to resume in Plenary Commission the dis- 
cussion of a question which has on several occasions been considered in all the 
necessary detail during the meetings of the Sub-Committee. 

2. Nevertheless, although the majority of the Delegations have already put 
forward views opposed to its proposal, it continues to believe in the importance 
of that proposal and in the necessity for its adoption and insertion in an 
international convention. 

3. From the point of view both of belligerent and of neutral States, there are 
reasons of the highest juridical and technical importance which make it in- 
dispensable to allow each State the power of including in its jurisdiction the 
atmospheric space to a distance of 10 miles from its coast. 

4. The difficulties resulting from the difference between the width of the 
marginal air-belt and the width of national territorial waters would not seem 
to be so serious as to render the Italian proposal unacceptable in practice. 

5. In any case, there is no juridical obstacle to the fixing of the same width 
of space for the marginal air-belt as for territorial waters, the Italian Delega- 
tion being of opinion that international law, as generally recognised, contains 
no rule prohibiting a State from extending its territorial waters to a distance 
of 10 sea-miles from its coasts. 

6. In conclusion, it urges that a question of such paramount importance 
should be reopened and placed upon the agenda of a conference in the near 
future. 

COMPENSATION AND DISPUTES 

The Netherlands Delegation submitted the following proposal : 

The belligerent Party who, intentionally, or through negligence, violates the 
provisions of the present rules is liable to pay compensation in case damage 
is caused as a result of such violation. Such Party will be responsible for all 
acts committed by members of his armed forces. 

If any dispute should arise on the subject which is not otherwise settled, 
such dispute shall be submitted for settlement to the Permanent Court of 
Arbitration, in conformity with Convention I of 1907, or to the Permanent 
Court of International Justice, in respect of such States as have accepted as 
compulsory ipso facto its jurisdiction. 

The Commission approving the principle of indemnity, decided 
to incorporate the proposal in its general report, so as to bring it to 
the attention of the Governments. 

VIOLATION OF THE RULES 

No provision is made in the articles adopted as to the penalties 
to which persons violating the rules are to be subject. Some of the 
57920—26 11 



154 NORWAY-SWEDEN AIE CONVENTION 

provisions in the drafts laid before the Commission stated that per- 
sons violating the article in question were to be punishable with 
death, or were to be treated as war criminals. No such stipulation 
figures in the Land Warfare Regulations and it has seemed better to 
omit it. Its absence will not in any way prejudice the imposition of 
punishment on persons who are guilty of breaches of the laws of 
aerial warfare. 

United States of America: 

John Bassett Moore. 

Albert Henry Washburn. 
British Empire : 

Rennell Rodd. 

Cecil J. B. Hurst. 
France : 

A. de Lapeadelle. 

Basdevant. 
Italy : 

V. ROLANDI RlCCI. 

Japan : 

K. Matsui. 
M. Matsuda. 
Netherlands : 

A. Struycken. 
Van Eysinga, 
The Secretary-General : 

J. P. A. Franqois. 
The Hague, February 19, 1923. 

CONVENTION BETWEEN NORWAY AND SWEDEN RELATING TO 
AIR NAVIGATION, SIGNED AT STOCKHOLM, MAY 26, 1923 2B 

His Majesty the King of Sweden and His Majesty the King of 
Norway, who have agreed to conclude a Convention relating to Air 
Navigation between Sweden and Norway, have for this purpose ap- 
pointed as their plenipotentiaries : 
His Majesty the King of Sweden : 

His Excellency Carl Fredrik Wilhelm Hederstierna, His 
Majesty's Minister for Foreign Affairs; 
His Majesty the King of Norway : 

M. Johan Herman Wollebaek, His Majesty's Envoye Extraor- 
dinary at Stockholm; 
who, having duly received full powers, have agreed as follows : 

25 1923 League of Nations Treaty Series, Vol. XVIII, p. 173. While the " Rules of 
Aerial Warfare " drawn up by the Commission of Jurists in 1923 have not been ratified, 
conventions somewhat similar to that of May 26, 1923, between Norway and Sweden have 
been ratified by several states since the World War. 



navigation clauses 155 

Article 1 

The Contracting States recognise each other's sovereignty in the 
air space above their territory and territorial waters. 

Article 2 

Each of the Contracting States undertakes in time of peace to ac- 
cord freedom of innocent passage above its territory to private air- 
craft of the other State, under the terms laid down in this Agree- 
ment, and shall accord to the other State any privilege which may 
be granted to any non-Contracting State with reference to admission 
over its territory. 

Article 3 

The conditions laid down by one Contracting State regarding the 
granting of air navigation for its own aircraft shall also be valid as 
regards such aircraft belonging to the other State as may desire ad- 
mission over its territory, provided the other State does not depart 
from the provisions of this Convention. 

The Contracting States will endeavour to secure the greatest pos- 
sible uniformity in the terms of these conditions. 

Article 4 

The Contracting States undertake to make provisions to ensure, in 
such manner as may be desirable according to the circumstances, that, 
should an aircraft belonging to one Contracting State be within the 
territory of the other, any claims on account of damage which may 
be put forward in the latter State, in accordance with law, by persons 
who have incurred damage either to themselves or to their property, 
except shipping, as a result of the use of the aircraft, shall be met by 
an insurance scheme. 

The insurance shall be of the same nature, and of the same value, 
as is required by the State in which the flight takes place in the case 
of its own aircraft when flying in its own territory. -. 

Even if one of the Contracting States does not require insurance 
payments from its own aircraft when flying over its own territory, 
aircraft belonging to the other Contracting State, when flying over 
the territory of the first-named State, shall be liable to pay the same 
insurance fees as when flying in their own country. 

The Contracting States shall recognise as valid the insurance 
scheme in force in each country for this purpose in the case of insur- 
ance companies recognised by the State in question, provided that 
the company concerned in the case settles claims for compensation 
through its representative in the other State. 



156 norway-sweden air convention 

Article 5 

Each Contracting State has the right, for military reasons or in 
the interest of public safety, to prohibit or restrict aircraft from 
flying over certain areas of its territory, under the penalties provided 
by its legislation, but on condition that the same provisions shall be 
laid down for this purpose for private aircraft belonging to the 
other Contracting State as are laid down for its own private aircraft. 

The other State shall be informed of any regulations enacted for 
this purpose. 

Article 6 

Any aircraft belonging to one of the Contracting States which 
finds itself above a prohibited area in the other State, shall imme- 
diately give the signal of distress provided for in the airway regu- 
tions (Annex D), and shall land as soon as possible outside the 
prohibited area on one of the aerodromes in that State. The State 
authorities may, however, require an immediate landing on another 
place, provided that such landing can be effected without danger. 

Article 7 

An aircraft shall possess the nationality of the State on whose 
aircraft register it is entered in accordance with Regulation A, I. c. 

A certificate of registration, issued by the competent authority of 
the country to which the aircraft belongs, shall be recognised as a 
valid proof of the nationality of the aircraft. 

Article 8 

An aircraft can only be entered on the aircraft register of one of 
the Contracting States if its owner is a national of that State. If 
the owner is an incorporated company belonging to the country in 
question, the headquarters of the company must be situated in that 
country and the president and at least two-thirds of the other mem- 
bers of the board of directors must be persons resident in that 
country, must possess civil rights and must be shareholders, and 
the company itself must fulfil the regulations customarily in force 
in that country. 

The registration of any aircraft which ceases to comply with these 
conditions shall at once be cancelled. 

Article 9 

An aircraft cannot legally be registered in more than one of the 
Contracting States. 



marks and certificates 157 

Article 10 

The Contracting Parties shall exchange each month through the 
registration authorities concerned extracts from the register of air- 
craft including a list of the aircraft entered in or deleted from the 
register. 

Article 11 

Aircraft engaged in navigation between the Contracting States 
shall, in accordance with Annex A, be provided with such marks 
showing their nationality and registration as are necessary for pur- 
poses of identification during the flight, together with other marks 
or signs. 

Article 12 

Aircraft engaged in air navigation between the Contracting 
States shall, in accordance with Annex B, be provided with a cer- 
tificate of air-worthiness, issued or recognised by the State whose 
nationality it possesses. 

Article 13 

The crew of an aircraft engaged in navigation between the Con- 
tracting States shall, in accordance with Annex E, be provided with 
certificates issued or recognised by the State whose marks of 
nationality the aircraft carries. 

Article 14 

Certificates of air-worthiness and the certificates of the crew, 
issued by one of the Contracting States in accordance with Annexes 
B and E, shall be recognised as valid by the other Contracting 
State. 

In the case of one of its own nationals, however, either State may 
refuse to recognise a certificate issued or recognised by the other 
State should the flight be over its own territory. 

Article 15 

No aircraft belonging to one of the Contracting States may have 
a wireless apparatus except with the special permission of the 
State to which it belongs. Wireless apparatus shall not be used ex- 
cept by members of the crew provided with a special license for 
the purpose, issued by the State to which the aircraft belongs. Air- 
craft which fulfil these conditions are entitled to carry and use wire- 
less apparatus when flying over the territory of the other Contract- 
ing State. 



158 NORWAY-SWEDEN AIR CONVENTION 

Either of the Contracting States can decree that certain kinds of 
aircraft shall carry wireless apparatus. The regulations provided 
for this purpose shall be the same for aircraft belonging to the 
State in question as for aircraft belonging to the other Contract- 
ing State. 

Regulations for the use of wireless apparatus shall, so far as pos- 
sible, be rendered uniform in the two Contracting States. 

The air administrations of the two Contracting States may agree 
to draw up joint rules on this subject. 

Article 16 

Aircraft belonging to one of the Contracting States may cross 
the territory of the other Contracting State without landing. In 
such a case an aircraft shall follow the route prescribed by the 
State over which the flight takes place. 

If required for reasons of public security, or if there should be 
any well-founded suspicion of an infraction of the law of the State 
over whose territory the flight takes place, aircraft may, by means 
of signals provided for in the air regulations (Annex D) be or- 
dered to land at an aerodrome, or at some other place, if this may 
be done without danger. 

Aircraft flying from the territory of one Contracting State to the 
territory of the other State shall also follow the route laid down by 
the State in question, and land at one of the aerodromes prescribed in 
the Customs Annex attached to this Convention. 

For the establishment of international air-routes (by which is 
understood air-routes marked out with ground marks) the consent 
of the State over whose territory the air route passes is required. No 
tolls for the use of international air-routes already established may 
be claimed from aircraft belonging to the other Contracting State 
provided they do not land. 

Article 17 

For the institution of a permanent system of air-route connections 
for the conveyance of persons and goods for hire between the Con- 
tracting States, the permission of the State with which it is desired to 
establish a connection is required. 

The Contracting States, however, undertake mutually to grant 
each others' aircraft the required permission, on condition that the 
aircraft of both States are allowed to use the air-route connections 
thus established on an equal footing. 

The air-post shall be organised by special Agreement between the 
Contracting States. 



traffic and papers 159 

Article 18 

Each of the Contracting States shall have the right to reserve to its 
national aircraft the carriage of persons and goods for hire between 
two points within its own territory. Should other States be granted 
the right to such traffic, the Contracting States shall afford each 
other most- favoured-nation treatment in this respect. 

If one of the Contracting States imposes restrictions of the kind 
referred to, which also affect the other State, its own aircraft may be 
subjected to the same restriction in the other Contracting State, 
even though the latter may not impose corresponding restrictions 
on other foreign aircraft. 

Restrictions and reservations of the kind referred to shall be made 
public, and notice of them shall be given to the other State. 

Article 19 

During a passage, including landings, and such stoppage as may 
in the circumstances be necessary in the territory of one Contract- 
ing State, aircraft belonging to the other Contracting State shall be 
exempted from seizure on the grounds of infringement of patent 
rights, in virtue of a certificate of immunity, the scope of which 
shall, in the absence of a friendly agreement, be determined as soon 
as possible by the competent authority at the place in question. 

Article 20 

Aircraft belonging to the Contracting States shall, when flying 
between the two countries, be provided with : 

(a) A certificate of registration in accordance with Annex A. 

(b) A certificate of air-worthiness in accordance with Annex 

B. 
(<?) Certificates of the crew, in accordance with Annex E. 

(d) A list of passengers. 

(e) A bill of lading of any goods carried, in accordance with 

the Customs Annex attached to this Convention. 
(/) Log-books, in accordance with Annex C. 
(g) An attestation, issued by the Air Navigation Administra- 
tion in the country to which the aircraft belongs, cer- 
tifying that an insurance policy has been taken out 
in accordance with Article 4. 
(h) If necessary, a special licence to carry wireless apparatus. 
The aircraft's papers shall make it clear who is in command on 
board. 



160 norway-sweden air convention 

Article 21 

The log-books shall be kept for two years after the last entry. 

Article 22 

Upon the departure or landing of an aircraft, the competent 
authorities of the Contracting States shall have the right to visit 
the aircraft and to verify the documents with which it must be 
provided. 

Article 23 

Aircraft belonging to one Contracting State may claim in the 
other State the same assistance on landing, and in case of distress, 
as aircraft belonging to that State. 

With regard to salvage of aircraft wrecked at sea, the Contract- 
ing States shall apply, so far as is possible, the regulations in force 
for the salvage of ships. 

Article 24 

Any aerodrome in the Contracting States available for general 
use, upon payment of charges, by the aircraft of the country in ques- 
tion, shall also be open for the use of aircraft belonging to the other 
Contracting State. 

The tariff rates and all other regulations for the use of such aero- 
dromes shall be the same for aircraft belonging to the other Con- 
tracting State as for the aircraft of the State in which the aerodrome 
is situated. 

Article 25 

Each Contracting State undertakes to adopt measures to ensure 
that every aircraft flying above the limits of its territory, and that 
every aircraft bearing its marks of nationality, which finds itself 
within the territory of the Contracting State or on international ter- 
ritory, shall comply with the air regulations (Annex D) ; the State 
shall also undertake to prosecute all persons infringing these regula- 
tions. 

Article 26 

The carriage by aircraft of explosives and of arms and munitions 
of war between the Contracting States is forbidden. 

Article 27 

Each of the Contracting States may prohibit or regulate the car- 
riage or use of photographic apparatus. 

The Contracting States shall inform each other of such regula- 
tions. 



CLASSES OF AIRCRAFT 161 

Article 28 

As a measure of public safety, the carriage of objects other than 
those mentioned in Articles 26 and 27 may be subjected to restric- 
tions by each Contracting State. 

The Contracting States shall inform each other of such regula- 
tions. 

Article 29 

All restrictions of the kind mentioned in Article 28 shall be applied 
equally to private aircraft belonging to the country in question and 
private aircraft belonging to the other Contracting State. 

Article 30 

All aircraft other than military and similar aircraft which are 
employed exclusively on State service, such as Customs, post and 
police aircraft, shall be treated as private aircraft and as such shall 
be subject to all the provisions of the present Convention. 

Article 31 

Every aircraft commanded by a person in military service detailed 
for the purpose is deemed to be a military aircraft. 

Article 32 

Military aircraft from one Contracting State may neither fly over 
nor land within the territory of the other Contracting State without 
special authorisation. In case of such authorisation the military air- 
craft shall enjoy, in the absence of a special stipulation, the privileges 
of ex-territoriality which are customarily accorded to foreign ships 
of war. A military aircraft which is forced to land and which does 
not possess authorisation to do so, or which is required or compelled 
to land cannot by reason thereof acquire right to ex-territoriality. 

Article 33 

Further negotiations shall be pursued between the Contracting 
parties to determine in what cases Customs and police aircraft can be 
authorised to cross the frontier. They shall in no case be entitled to 
the privilege of ex-territoriality. 

Article 34 

The provisions of this Convention shall be supplemented by An- 
nexes a to 6, which shall come into force simultaneously with the 
Convention and shall be valid for the same period as the latter. 

These annexes may be modified and amplified by negotiations be- 
tween the air administrations of the Contracting States. 
57920—26 — -12 



162 NORWAY-SWEDEN AIR CONVENTION 

Article 35 

Each Contracting State undertakes to cooperate as far as possible 
in international measures concerning: 

(a) Meteorological investigations; 

(b) The publication of standard aeronautical maps and the 

establishment of a uniform system of ground marks for 
flying; 

(c) The use of wireless in air navigation and the establish- 

ment of the necessary wireless stations. 
The air administrations of the Contracting States may negotiate 
directly with each other regarding joint regulations for the matters 
referred to in (a) and (&). 

Article 36 

The air administrations of the Contracting States shall, except 
in cases which they have authority to decide by the terms of the 
present Convention, receive and elaborate proposals for amendments 
to this Convention, and shall further deal with questions affecting 
air navigation between the Contracting States. 

Article 37 

The Contracting States undertake to accord to each other's air- 
craft arriving at, departing from or traversing their respective 
countries, the same treatment in every respect as they accord to their 
own aircraft and to treat any cargo, lawfully carried by such air- 
craft, in the same manner as if it were carried by their own air- 
craft. 

Each one of the Contracting States undertakes to accord to the 
other State the same privileges as they concede to any third State in 
regard to the matters referred to herein. 

General regulations regarding the relations between the Customs 
authorities and aircraft are given in the Annex, which is to be re- 
garded as an integral part of this Convention. 

Article 38 

An aircraft, together with the crew, passengers, merchandise, food 
provisions and goods which it carries shall, subject to the provisions 
of this Convention, conform to the laws and other regulations in 
force in regard to air navigation, customs, taxes and the movement of 
persons and goods in the country in which the aircraft finds itself, 
as also to such other laws and regulations as may affect the matter in 
question. 



RATIFICATION 163 

Article 39 

In case of war the provisions of this Convention shall in no way 
limit the freedom of action of the Contracting States in their 
capacity as belligerents or as neutrals. 

Article 40 

Disputes between the Contracting States affecting the interpreta- 
tion or application of this Convention and of the annexes thereto 
shall, if they cannot be settled by direct negotiations, be referred for 
decision to the Permanent Court of International Justice instituted 
by the League of Nations. 

Article 41 

This Convention shall be ratified and the ratifications shall be ex- 
changed as early as possible at Stockholm. 

The Convention shall come into force with effect from the date of 
the exchange of ratifications. It may be denounced at six months 
notice from the Contracting States. 

Article 42 

In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the 
present Convention and have thereto affixed their seals. 
Done at Stockholm in duplicate on May 26, 1923. 

Carl Hederstierna. 

j. h. wollebaek. 



GENEVA PROTOCOL, 1924 

PROTOCOL FOR THE PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL 

DISPUTES 26 

[Approved by the Assembly of the League of Nations, October 2, 1924] 

Animated by the firm desire to ensure the maintenance of general 
peace and the security of nations whose existence, independence or 
territories may be threatened; 

Recognizing the solidarity of the members of the international 
community ; 

Asserting that a war of aggression constitutes a violation of this 
solidarity and an international crime; 

Desirous of facilitating the complete application of the system 
provided in the Covenant of the League of Nations for the pacific 
settlement of disputes between states and of ensuring the repression 
of international crimes; and 

For the purpose of realizing, as contemplated by Article 8 of the 
Covenant, the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point 
consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common 
action of international obligations; 

The undersigned, duly authorized to that effect, agree as follows: 

26 League of Nations doc. Annexe II a A. 135, 1924. See also protocol with the general 
report of the first and third committees of the Assembly, and the resolutions adopted by 
the Assembly on Oct. 2, 1924, British Parliamentary Paper, Misc. No. 18 (1924). 

This protocol has not been ratified, though it has received much discussion. 

At the twenty-third session of the Council of the League of Nations, March 12-13, 
1925, the following resolution was adopted by the Council : 

" The Council, having heard the statement of the representative of the British Empire 
on the Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, and also tbe decla- 
rations of the other Members of the Council ; 

" Considering that the fifth Assembly, by a resolution unanimously adopted on October 
2nd, 1924, decided to recommend to the earnest attention of all the Members of the 
League the acceptance of the said draft Protocol, and that in the same resolution it invited 
the Council to undertake certain preparatory work provided for in various articles of the 
draft Protocol ; 

"And considering that the Council decided on October 28th, 1924, to undertake itself 
the work of preparing for the Conference on the Reduction of Armaments, which it had 
originally asked the Council Committee to undertake at a meeting to be held on November 
17th, 1924 : 

" Decides : 

"(a) To refer to the sixth Assembly the above-mentioned declarations of the repre- 
sentative of the British Empire and the other Members of the Council, together with 
any declarations on the same subject which may be communicated to it by the Govern- 
ments of the Members of the League, and instructs the Secretary-General to place this 
question forthwith upon the agenda of the sixth Assembly (1925) ; 

"(b) To postpone the work of preparation which it had decided to undertake until the 
sixth Assembly has given a decision on the question submitted to it." 

164 



GENERAL PROVISIONS 165 

Article I 

The signatory states undertake to make every effort in their power 
to secure the introduction into the Covenant of amendments on the 
lines of the provisions contained in the following articles. 

They agree that, as between themselves, these provisions shall be 
binding as from the coming into force of the present protocol and 
that, so far as they are concerned, the Assembly and the Council 
of the League of Nations shall thenceforth have power to exercise 
all the rights and perform all the duties conferred upon them by 
the protocol. 

Article 2 

The signatory states agree in no case to resort to war either with? 
one another or against a state which, if the occasion arises, accepts 
all the obligations hereinafter set out, except in case of resistance to* 
acts of aggression or when acting in agreement with the Council or 
the Assembly of the League of Nations in accordance with the pro- 
visions of the Covenant and of the present protocol. 

Article 3 

The signatory states undertake to recognize as compulsory, ipsa 
facto and without special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Perma- 
nent Court of International Justice in the cases covered by para- 
graph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, but without prej- 
udice to the right of any state, when acceding to the special protocol 
provided for in the said article and opened for signature on Decem- 
ber 16, 1920, to make reservations compatible with the said clause. 

Accession to this special protocol, opened for signature on Decem- 
ber 16, 1920, must be given within the month following the coming 
into force of the present protocol. 

States which accede to the present protocol, after its coming into 
force, must carry out the above obligation within the month follow- 
ing their accession. 

Article 4 

With a view to render more complete the provisions of paragraphs 
4, 5, 6, and 7 of Article 15 of the Covenant, the signatory states agree 
to comply with the following procedure : 

1. If the dispute submitted to the Council is not settled by it as 
provided in paragraph 3 of the said Article 15, the Councilshall en- 
deavor to persuade the parties to submit the dispute to judicial settle- 
ment or arbitration. 



166 UNRATIFIED GENEVA PROTOCOL, 1924 

2. (a) If the parties cannot agree to do so, there shall, at the re- 
quest of at least one of the parties, be constituted a Committee of 
Arbitrators. The Committee shall so far as possible be constituted 
by agreement between the parties. 

(b) If within the period fixed b}^ the Council the parties have 
failed to agree, in whole or in part, upon the number, the names and 
the powers of the arbitrators and upon the procedure, the Council 
shall settle the points remaining in suspense. It shall with the ut- 
most possible despatch select in consultation with the parties the 
arbitrators and their President from among persons who by their na- 
tionality, their personal character and their experience, appear to it 
to furnish the highest guarantees of competence and impartiality. 

(c) After the claims of the parties have been formulated, the 
Committee of Arbitrators, on the request of any party, shall through 
the medium of the Council request an advisory opinion upon any 
points of law in dispute from the Permanent Court of International 
Justice, which in such case shall meet with the utmost possible 
despatch. 

3. If none of the parties asks for arbitration, the Council shall 
again take the dispute under consideration. If the Council reaches 
a report which is unanimously agreed to by the members thereof 
other than the representatives of any of the parties to the dispute, 
the signatory states agree to comply with the recommendations 
therein. 

4. If the Council fails to reach a report which is concurred in by 
all its members, other than the representatives of any of the parties 
to the dispute, it shall submit the dispute to arbitration. It shall 
itself determine the composition, the powers and the procedure of 
the Committee of Arbitrators and, in the choice of the arbitrators, 
shall bear in mind the guarantees of competence and impartiality 
referred to in paragraph 2 (b) above. 

5. In no case may a solution, upon which there has already been a 
unanimous recommendation of the Council accepted by one of the 
parties concerned, be again called in question. 

6. The signatory states undertake that they will carry out in full 
good faith any judicial sentence or arbitral award that may be ren- 
dered and that they will comply, as provided in paragraph 3, above, 
with the solutions recommended by the Council. In the event of 
a state failing to carry out the above undertakings, the Council shall 
exert all its influence to secure compliance therewith. If it fails 
therein, it shall propose what steps should be taken to give effect 
thereto, In accordance with the provision contained at the end of 
Article 13 of the Covenant. Should a state in disregard of the above 
undertakings resort to war, the sanctions provided for by Article 16 



DOMESTIC QUESTIONS 167 

of the Covenant, interpreted in the manner indicated in the present 
protocol, shall immediately become applicable to it. 

7. The provisions of the present article do not apply to the settle- 
ment of disputes which arise as the result of measures of war taken 
by one or more signatory states in agreement with the Council or 
the Assembly. 

Article 5 

The provisions of paragraph 8 of Article 15 of the Covenant shall 
continue to apply in proceedings before the Council. 

If in the course of an arbitration, such as is contemplated by 
Article 4 above, one of the parties claims that the dispute, or part 
thereof, arises out of a matter which by international law is solely 
within the domestic jurisdiction of that party, the arbitrators shall 
on this point take the advice of the Permanent Court of Interna- 
tional Justice through the medium of the Council. The opinion 
of the Court shall be binding upon the arbitrators, who, if the 
opinion is affirmative, shall confine themselves to so declaring in 
their award. 

If the question is held by the Court or by the Council to be a 
matter solely within the domestic jurisdiction of the state, this deci- 
sion shall not prevent consideration of the situation by the Council or 
by the Assembly under Article 11 of the Covenant. 

Article 6 

If in accordance with paragraph 9 of Article 15 of the Covenant 
a dispute is referred to the Assembly, that body shall have for the 
settlement of the dispute all the powers conferred upon the Council 
as to endeavoring to reconcile the parties in the manner laid down 
in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 15 of the Covenant and in para- 
graph 1 of Article 4 above. 

Should the Assembly fail to achieve an amicable settlement : 

If one of the parties asks for arbitration, the Council shall proceed 
to constitute the Committee of Arbitrators in the manner provided in 
subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 of Article 4 above. 

If no party asks for arbitration, the Assembly shall again take the 
dispute under consideration and shall have in this connection the 
same powers as the Council. Recommendations embodied in a report 
of the Assembly, provided that it secures the measure of support 
stipulated at the end of paragraph 10 of Article 15 of the Covenant, 
shall have the same value and effect, as regards all matters dealt with 
in the present protocol, as recommendations embodied in a report of 
the Council adopted as provided in paragraph 3 of Article 4 above. 



168 UNRATIFIED GENEVA PROTOCOL, 1924 

If the necessary majority cannot be obtained, the dispute shall be 
submitted to arbitration and the Council shall determine the compo- 
sition, the powers and the procedure of the Committee of Arbitrators 
as laid down in paragraph 4 of Article 4. 

Article 7 

In the event of a dispute arising between two or more signatory 
states, these states agree that they will not, either before the dispute 
is submitted to proceedings for pacific settlement or during such pro- 
ceedings, make any increase of their armaments or effectives which 
might modify the position established by the Conference for the 
Reduction of Armaments provided for by Article 17 of the present 
protocol, nor will they take any measure of military, naval, air, in- 
dustrial or economic mobilisation, nor, in general, any action of a 
nature likely to extend the dispute or render it more acute. 

It shall be the duty of the Council, in accordance with the pro- 
visions of Article 11 of the Covenant, to take under consideration any 
complaint as to infraction of the above undertakings which is made 
to it by one or more of the states parties to the dispute. Should the 
Council be of opinion that the complaint requires investigation, it 
shall, if it deems it expedient, arrange for enquiries and investiga- 
tions in one or more of the countries concerned. Such enquiries and 
investigations shall be carried out with the utmost possible despatch 
and the signatory states undertake to afford every facility for carry- 
ing them out. 

The sole object of measures taken by the Council as above provided 
is to facilitate the pacific settlement of disputes and they shall in no 
way prejudge the actual settlement. 

If the result of such enquiries and investigations is to establish 
an infraction of the provisions of the first paragraph of the present 
article, it shall be the duty of the Council to summon the state or 
states guilty of the infraction to put an end thereto. Should the 
state or states in question fail to comply with such summons, the 
Council shall declare them to be guilty of a violation of the Cove- 
nant or of the present protocol, and shall decide upon the measures 
to be taken with a view to end as soon as possible a situation of a 
nature to threaten the peace of the world. 

For the purposes of the present article decisions of the Council 
may be taken by a two-thirds majority. 

Article 8 

The signatory states undertake to abstain from any act which 
might constitute a threat of aggression against another state. 



DETERMINATION OF AGGEESSOB 169 

If one of the signatory states is of opinion that another state is 
making preparations for war, it shall have the right to bring the 
matter to the notice of the Council. 

The Council, if it ascertains that the facts are as alleged, shall 
proceed as provided in paragraphs 2, 4, and 5 of Article 7. 

Article 9 

The existence of demilitarized zones being calculated to prevent 
aggression and to facilitate a definite finding of the nature pro- 
vided for in Article 10 below, the establishment of such zones be- 
tween states mutually consenting thereto is recommended as a means 
of avoiding violations of the present protocol. 

The demilitarized zones already existing under the terms of cer- 
tain treaties or conventions, or which may be established in future 
between states mutually consenting thereto, may at the request and 
at the expense of one or more of the conterminous states, be placed; 
under a temporary or permanent system of supervision to be organ- 
ised by the Council. 

Article 10 

Every state which resorts to war in violation of the undertakings; 
contained in the Covenant or in the present protocol is an aggressor. 
Violation of the rules laid down for a demilitarized zone shall be 
held equivalent to resort to war. 

In the event of hostilities having broken out, any state shall be 
presumed to be an aggressor, unless a decision of the Council, which 
must be taken unanimously, shall otherwise declare : 

1. If it has refused to submit the dispute to the procedure of' 
pacific settlement provided by Articles 13 and 15 of the Covenant 
as amplified by the present protocol, or to comply with a judicial 
sentence or arbitral award or with a unanimous recommendation of 
the Council, or has disregarded a unanimous report of the Council,, 
a judicial sentence or an arbitral award recognizing that the dispute 
between it and the other belligerent state arises out of a matter 
which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction 
of the latter state; nevertheless, in the last case the state shall only 
be presumed to be an aggressor if it has not previously submitted 
the question to the Council or the Assembly, in accordance with 
Article 11 of the Covenant. 

2. If it has violated provisional measures enjoined by the Council 
for the period while the proceedings are in progress as contemplated 
by Article 7 of the present protocol. 

Apart from the cases dealt with in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the 
present Article, if the Council does not at once succeed in deter- 



170 UNRATIFIED GENEVA PROTOCOL, 1924 

mining the aggressor, it shall be bound to enjoin upon the belliger- 
ents an armistice, and shall fix the terms, acting, if need be, by a 
two-thirds majority and shall supervise its execution. 

Any belligerent which has refused to accept the armistice or has 
violated its terms shall be deemed an aggressor. 

The Council shall call upon the signatory states to apply forth- 
with against the aggressor the sanctions provided by Article 11 of 
the present protocol, and any signatory state thus called upon shall 
thereupon be entitled to exercise the rights of a belligerent. 

Article 11 

As soon as the Council has called upon the signatory states to 
apply sanctions, as provided in the last paragraph of Article 10 of 
the present protocol, the obligations of the said states, in regard 
to the sanctions of all kinds mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 of 
Article 16 of the Covenant, will immediately become operative in 
order that such sanctions may forthwith be employed against the 
aggressor. 

Those obligations shall be interpreted as obliging each of the 
signatory states to cooperate loyally and effectively in support of 
the Covenant of the League of Nations, and in resistance to any 
act of aggression, in the degree which its geographical position and 
Its particular situation as regards armaments allow. 

In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Covenant 
the signatory states give a joint and several undertaking to come to 
the assistance of the state attacked or threatened, and to give each 
other mutual support by means of facilities and reciprocal ex- 
changes as regards the provision of raw materials and supplies of 
every kind, openings of credits, transport and transit, and for this 
purpose to take all measures in their power to preserve the safety 
of communications by land and by sea of the attacked or threatened 
state. 

If both parties to the dispute are aggressors within the meaning of 
Article 10, the economic and financial sanctions shall be applied to 
both of them. 

Article 12 

In view of the complexity of the conditions in which the Council 
may be called upon to exercise the functions mentioned in Article 11 
of the present protocol concerning economic and financial sanctions, 
and in order to determine more exactly the guarantees afforded by 
the present protocol to the signatory states, the Council shall forth- 
with invite the economic and financial organizations of the League of 
Nations to consider and report as to the nature of the steps to be 



SANCTIONS 171 

taken to give effect to the financial and economic sanctions and meas- 
ures of cooperation contemplated in Article 16 of the Covenant and 
in Article 11 of his protocol. 

When in possession of this information, the Council shall draw up 
through its competent organs : 

1. Plans of action for the application of the economic and financial 
sanctions against an aggressor state; 

2. Plans of economic and financial cooperation between a state 
attacked and the different states assisting it ; and shall communicate 
these plans to the members of the League and to the other signatory 
states. 

Article 13 

In view of the contingent military, naval and air sanctions pro- 
vided for by Article 16 of the Covenant and by Article 11 of the 
present protocol, the Council shall be entitled to receive undertakings 
from states determining in advance the military, naval and air forces 
which they would be able to bring into action immediately to ensure 
the fulfilment of the obligations in regard to sanctions which result 
from the Covenant and the present protocol. 

Furthermore, as soon as the Council has called upon the signatory 
states to apply sanctions, as provided in the last paragraph of Article 
10 above, the said states may, in accordance with any agreements 
which they may previously have concluded, bring to the assistance of 
a particular state, which is the victim of aggression, their military, 
naval and air forces. 

The agreements mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall be 
registered and published by the Secretariat of the League of Nations. 
They shall remain open to all states members of the League which 
may desire to accede thereto. 

Article 14 

The Council shall alone be competent to declare that the applica- 
tion of sanctions shall cease and normal conditions be reestablished. 

Article 15 

In conformity with the spirit of the present protocol, the signatory 
states agree that the whole cost of any military, naval or air opera- 
tions undertaken for the repression of an aggression under the terms 
of the protocol, and reparation for all losses suffered by individuals, 
whether civilians or combatants, and for all material damage caused 
by the operations of both sides, shall be borne by the aggressor state 
up to the extreme limit of its capacity. 

Nevertheless, in view of Article 10 of the Covenant, neither the ter- 
ritorial integrity nor the political independence of the aggressor 



172 UNRATIFIED GENEVA PROTOCOL, 1924 

state shall in any case be affected as the result of the application of 
the sanctions mentioned in the present protocol. 

Article 16 

The signatory states agree that in the event of a dispute between 
one or more of them and one or more states which have not signed 
the present protocol and are not members of the League of Nations,, 
such non-member states shall be invited, on the conditions contem- 
plated in Article IT of the Covenant, to submit, for the purpose of a 
pacific settlement, to the obligations accepted by the states signa- 
tories of the present protocol. 

If the state so invited, having refused to accept the said conditions 
and obligations, resorts to war against a signatory state, the pro- 
visions of Article 16 of the Covenant, as defined by the present pro- 
tocol, shall be applicable against it. 

Article 17 

The signatory states undertake to participate in an International 
Conference for the Reduction of Armaments which shall be con- 
vened by the Council and shall meet at Geneva on Monday, June 15, 
1925. All other states, whether members of the League or not, shall 
be invited to this Conference. 

In preparation for the convening of the Conference, the Council 
shall draw up with due regard to the undertakings contained in 
Articles 11 and 13 of the present protocol a general programme for 
the reduction and limitation of armaments, which shall be laid before 
the Conference and which shall be communicated to the governments 
at the earliest possible date, and at the latest three months before the 
Conference meets. 

If by May 1, 1925, ratifications have not been deposited by at least 
a majority of the permanent Members of the Council and ten other 
members of the League, the Secretary-General of the League shall 
immediately consult the Council as to whether he shall cancel the 
invitations or merely adjourn the Conference until a sufficient num- 
ber of ratifications have been deposited. 

Article 18 

Wherever mention is made in Article 10, or in any other provision 
of the present protocol, of a decision of the Council, this shall be 
understood in the sense of Article 15 of the Covenant, namely that 
the votes of the representatives of the parties to the dispute shall not 
be counted when reckoning unanimity or the necessary majority. 



FINAL CLAUSES 173 

Article 19 

Except as expressly provided by its terms, the present protocol 
shall not affect in any way the rights and obligations of members of 
the League as determined by the Covenant. 

Article 20 

Any dispute as to the interpretation of the present protocol shall 
he submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice. 

Article 21 

The present protocol, of which the French and English texts are 
b>oth authentic, shall be ratified. 

The deposit of ratifications shall be made at the Secretariat of the 
League of Nations as soon as possible. 

States of which the seat of government is outside Europe will be 
entitled merely to inform the Secretariat of the League of Nations 
that their ratification has been given ; in that case, they must trans- 
mit the instrument of ratification as soon as possible. 

So soon as the majority of the permanent members of the Council 
and ten other members of the League have deposited or have effected 
their ratifications, a proces-verbal to that effect shall be drawn up by 
the Secretariat. 

After the said proces-verbal has been drawn up, the protocol shall 
come into force as soon as the plan for the reduction of armaments 
has been adopted by the Conference provided for in Article 17. 

If within such period after the adoption of the plan for the reduc- 
tion of armaments as shall be fixed by the said Conference, the plan 
has not been carried out, the Council shall make a declaration to that 
effect; this declaration shall render the present protocol null and 
void. 

The grounds on which the Council may declare that the plan 
drawn up by the International Conference for the Reduction of 
Armaments has not been carried out, and that in consequence the 
present protocol has been rendered null and void, shall be laid down 
by the Conference itself. 

A signatory state which, after the expiration of the period fixed 
by the Conference, fails to comply with the plan adopted by the 
Conference, shall not be admitted to benefit by the provisions of the 
present protocol. 

In faith whereof the undersigned, duly authorized for this pur- 
pose, have signed the present protocol. 

Done at Geneva, on the second day of October, nineteen hundred 
and twenty- four, in a single copy, which will be kept in the archives 
of the Secretariat of the League and registered by it on the date of 
its coming into force. 



INDEX 



Aaland Islands : Page 

Arms limitation 58 

Boundaries-*. 56 

Council of League of Nations 59, 60 

Innocent passage through territorial waters 58 

Neutralization and Non-fortifications Convention 56 

Neutral zone 58, 59 

No military establishment 58 

Administrations, air 162 

Admission to neutral ports 131 

Aerial : 

Capture {see Aircraft, capture). 

Jurisdiction 112, 152 

Observation 136 

Warfare — 

Commission of Jurists report 97 

Rules of 108 

Aerial and Radio, Commission of Jurists report 96 

Aerodrome 158, 160 

Aeronautical maps 162 

Aggressor {see Geneva Protocol). 

Air: 

Administrations 162 

Freedom of passage 113, 126 

Marginal belt 153 

Navigation 155 

International Convention 1919 108, 147 

Most-favored nation treatment 159 

Norway-Sweden Convention 1923 154 

Propaganda 118 

Regulations , 160, 162 

Routes 158 

Rules, violation of 153 

Sanctions {see Geneva Protocol). 
Space — 

Jurisdiction of 112, 152 

Sovereignty above territory and territorial waters 155 

Aircraft : 

Air-worthiness 157 

Alighting 113, 133, 141, 142 

Belligerent military 131 

Bombardment 118, 120 

Capture 136, 137, 139, 148 

175 



176 INDEX 

-Aircraft — Continued. Page 

Cargo 162 

Carriage of explosives and photographic apparatus in 160 

Carriers 4, 5, 6, 15, 132 

Categories 108 

'Change of course 104 

Classification 109 

Commercial 109, 110 

Passenger-carrying line 128 

State-owned lines 142 

Condemnation 136, 148 

Confiscation 126 

Contraband 144, 150 

Conversion 112 

Crew reserve 128 

Customs 110, 161 

damage 155 

Definition i 108 

Destruction 139, 140. 149, 150 

Distress 132,160 

Duration of liability 102 

Enemy — 

Crew 128, 129 

Passengers 128, 129 

Prisoners of war 128, 129 

Engine of war, new 137 

Espionage 125 

Examination of message logs 102 

Extra-territoriality 161 

False marks 117, 144, 148 

Flying ambulances 116, 127 

Immunities and privileges 131 

Grounds for capture 142, 143, 144, 146 

Grounds for flight 142 

Hostile expedition 135 

Hostilities 116 

Identification 157 

Immunities-. 115 

Innocent passage 155 

Insurance 155 

Internment 132, 133 

In distress 132, 160 

In war 163 

Liability — 

To capture 102, 142 

To condemnation 148 

List exchange 157 

Log-books—. . 147. 150, 160 

Marks 109, 110, 111, 117. 122. 144. 148, 157 

Military 131,161 

Authority over 125 

Belligerent rights 114 

Character 109 



INDEX 177 

Aircraft — Continued. 

Military — Continued. Page 

Command 114 

Crew 114 

Definition 151 

Discipline 114 

Emergency 149 

On board vessel of war . 136 

Nationality 112, 156 

Naval, definition 151 

Navigation regulations 156 

Prohibited area 156 

Neutral 129 

Crew 130 

Passengers 130 

Prisoners of war 130 

Public non-military 142 

Radio stations on 102 

Risk of being fired upon 128 

Risk of capture 128 

Non-military 115 

Landing 127 

Observers > 115 

Participation in hostilities 115 

Risk 127 

Scouts 115 

Transmission of intelligence 115 

On board vessels 132 

Papers 109, 144, 147, 150, 159 

Passengers, release 130 

Patent rights ,; 159 

Personnel — 

Internment 133 

Rules 151 

Persons on board placed in safety 149, 150 

Police 110 

Postal service 109, 110 

Private 110 

Armed 114, 115, 116 

Prize courts 110, 148, 150 

Prize proceedings 127 

Public 104 

Radio 157, 158, 162 

Reconnaissance 125 

Registration certificate 156 

Regulations 162 

Requisition 126 

Risk of being fired upon 128, 143 

Risk of capture 128 

Routing 135, 138, 139, 140 

Salvage 160 

Sojourn 1 113 

Spying 125 



178 INDEX 

Aircraft — Continued. Page 

Squadron badges 117 

Types of 108 

Use of force 141 

Visit 109, 160 

Visit and search 136, 137, 139, 141, 142 

Forbidden 139 

War, Central American Convention 21 

War, knowledge of 113 

Aircraft and submarines 139 

Aircraft and surface warships 138 

Airmen in parachute 118 

Air-post 158 

Air-routes 158 

Air-worthiness 157 

Ajax, H. M. S i 3 

Ambulances, flying (see Aircraft, flying ambulances). 

American-British Intoxicating Liquors Convention 88 

American-Panaman Intoxicating Liquors Convention 91 

Anti-air attack protection 12 

Arbitration, Permanent Court, The Hague i 93 

Armament : 

International Conference for the Reduction of {see Geneva 
Protocol). 

Limitation of, Washington Treaty 1 

New construction , 6 

Warlike, preparations in merchant ships 5 

Armed aircraft 114, 144, 148 

Arms : 

Central American exportation 21 

Limitations, Aaland Islands 58 

Supply, neutral 134 

Asphyxiating gases, Central American Convention 21 

Auxiliaries, not included in limitation, Washington Treaty 5 

Badges, squadron, aircraft 117 

Barred areas 126 

Base: 

Neutral territory 132 

Of operations 134 

Blister protection 12 

Blockade 145 

Breach of, aircraft 144 

Bombardment : 

Aerial 118, 120 

Exempt places and zones 121, 122 

Historic monuments 122 

Liability for 121 

Military objectives 121 

Naval Convention 1907 120, 121 

Radio station . 107 

Breach of blockade, aircraft 144 

British Empire : 

Capital ships retained by 8 

Declarations ( see Geneva Protocol ) . 



INDEX 179 

rage 

Bulge protection 12 

Bullets (see Means of war). 

Cable, Island of Yap 76 

Capital ships 3 

Definition 15 

Retained by — 

British Empire 8 

France 8 

Italy 8 

Japan 9 

United States 7 

Total replacement tonnage 3 

Capture, aircraft 136, 137, 139, 148 

Grounds for (see Aircraft, grounds for capture). 
Liability to (see Aircraft, liability to capture). 

Risk of, one year - 103 

Cargo, aircraft 162 

Carriers, aircraft (see Aircraft, carriers). 

Censorship, radio 101 

Central American Convention for the Limitation of Armaments 20 

Centurion, H. M. S 3 

Cession of Danish West Indies, Convention 35 

■Chemicals, Commission of Jurists Report 97 

Claims : 

British-American Liquor Smuggling Convention 90 

Danish West Indies Convention 37 

Panaman-American Liquor Smuggling Convention 93 

Spitsbergen 49, 51 

Close season, halibut fishing 85 

Citizenship, Danish West Indies 39 

Civil war, Central American Convention 21 

Coast guard boats, Central American Convention 21 

Coasting trade, Spitsbergen 48 

Commission of Jurists, Rules of Warfare, report 96-154 

Committee of Arbitrators (see Geneva Protocol). 

Communication on Insular Possessions, Pacific Ocean 25 

Communication privileges, Island of Yap 76 

Conference, International, for the Reduction of Armaments (see Geneva 
Protocol). 

Conference on the Limitation of Armament, Commission of Jurists 96 

Construction, new 4, 5, 6 

Contraband : 

Aircraft 144, 150 

Export . 134 

Transit 134 

Convention : 

Danish West Indies, interpretation of 40 

Norway-Sweden, Air Navigation 1923 154 

Opening of Hostilities 114 

Conversion of aircraft 112 

Corn Island, leases by Nicaragua 33 

Council of League of Nations, Aaland Islands 59, 60 



180 INDEX 

Page 

Course, change of, aircraft or ship 104 

Covenant, League of Nations (see Geneva Protocol). 

Customs, aircraft 110, 161 

Danish West Indies Convention 35-44 

Church property provisos 42 

Citizenship—, 39 

Claims 37 

Concessions . 37 

Copyrights , 40- 

Courts 39 

Declaration concerning Greenland 42 

Delivery . 38 

Grants . 37 

Inhabitants . 39 

Interpretation 40 

Patents . 40 

Payment 38 

Property 36, 40, 42 

Ratifications 41 

Rights 39 

Dante Alighieri, the 9 

Declaration : 

As to mandates 26 

Of London 1909 98,113,142,143,145,146,150 

Of Paris 1856 114 

Defense, right of, Central American 21 

Delaware, U. S. S 3 

Demilitarized zones (see Geneva Protocol). 

Depots, military 120 

Destruction, aircraft (see Aircraft, destruction). 

Discipline, military aircraft crew 114 

Displacement : 

Aircraft carrier 4 

New construction 6 

Standard 3, 15 

Distinctive emblem, military aircraft crew 114 

Distress : 

Aircraft in j 132, 160 

Radio messages of 106 

Emblem, distinctive, military aircraft crew 114 

Erection, radio 100 

Espionage 106, 107, 124 

Aircraft = 125 

Punishment , 125 

Exemption of places and zones from bombardment 121,122 

Explosive projectiles (see Means of War). 

Explosives, aircraft carriage of 160 

Exportation of arms and munitions, Central American 21 

Expropriation, Spitsbergen 49 

Extra-territoriality, aircraft 161 

False marks, aircraft , 117,144,148 

Fauna and flora preservation in Spitsbergen 47 



INDEX 181 

Page 

Fisheries, International Commission 85,86 

Fishery, Halibut Preservation Convention 84 

Fishing rights in Spitsbergen 47 

Flag, Right to a, Declaration 83 

Fonseca, Gulf of. naval base 33 

Fortifications : 

Spitsbergen 50 

Status quo 6 

Four Power Treaty 23-28 

France, capital ships retained by 8 

Freedom of passage, air 113, 126 

Gases : 

Asphyxiating, Central American Convention 21 

Noxious, Committee of Jurists Report 96 

German Islands, former : 

North Pacific, Convention 73-79 

South Pacific possessions 79 

United States nationals and vessels in visit 78 

Geneva Convention 1907 98,116,121,127,134 

Geneva Protocol 1924 , 164-173 

Aggressor 169,170 

British Empire declarations 164 

Committee of Arbitrators 166 

Compulsory jurisdiction of Permanent Court 165 

Covenant of League of Nations 164 

Demilitarized zones 169 

Domestic jurisdiction 167 

International Conference for Reduction of Armaments 172 

Obligations of states 170 

Permanent Court of International Justice 165, 173 

Sanctions — 

Economic and financial 170 

Military, naval and air 171 

Gift, vessel of war 6 

Giulio Cesare, the 9 

Great Corn Island, Nicaraguan leases 33 

Greenland, Declaration concerning 42 

Gulf of Fonseca, naval base 33 

Gun calibre : 

Aircraft carrier 5 

Limitation of 5 

Guns, number of, aircraft carrier 5 

Hague : 

Convention 1907 98 

Court of Arbitration 93 

Halibut Fishery Convention 84-87 

Close season 85 

Jurisdiction 85 

Historic monuments, bombardment of 122, 124 

Hostile expedition, aircraft 135 

Hostilities : 

Aircraft . 115, 116 

Convention on opening of 114 



182 INDEX 

Page 

Hunting rights in Spitsbergen 47 

Immunity : 

Flying ambulances (see Aircraft, flying ambulances). 

Monuments 123 

Private property 137 

Incendiary bullets and projectiles (see Means of war). 
Innocent passage: 

Aaland Islands 58 

Aircraft 155 

Insular Possessions in Pacific Ocean : 

Four Power Treaty 23-28 

Joint conference on 25 

Status quo 6 

Supplementary Agreement to Treaty 28 

Intelligence, transmission of, aircraft 115 

Interference, regulation of radio 104 

Internment, aircraft 132, 133 

Intoxicating Liquors, Smuggling of: 

British- American Convention 88 

Panaman-American Convention 91 

Island of Yap Convention (see Yap, island of). 

Italy, capital ships retained by 8 

Japan, capital ships retained by 9 

Japanese declaration, Class "C" Mandates 82 

Jean Bart, the 9 

Joint Conference on Insular Possessions, Pacific Ocean 25 

Jurisdiction : 

Definition 151 

Domestic (see Geneva Protocol). 

In air space 112, 152 

Maritime 152 

Neutral 152 

Over halibut fishing 85 

Territorial 152 

King George V, H. M. S 3 

Land: 

Claims, Spitsbergen 51 

Radio stations on 102 

Warfare Regulations 120, 121, 124, 126, 130, 151 

War Neutrality Convention 97, 100^ 

Law: 

Developing of international 13T 

Of nations 151 

League of Nations : 

Council, Aaland Islands 59, 60* 

Covenant 164 

Mandates , 61 

Leased territories 151 

Lebanon and Syria mandate 61-07 

Convention terms 62 

United States consent 66 

Life at sea, safety of, London Convention, 1914 99* 

Limitation of Armament : 

Central American Convention 20-23 



INDEX 183 

Limitation of Armament — Continued. Page 

Commission of Jurists 96 

Naval Treaty, Washington 1922 1-19 

Liquors, Smuggling of Intoxicating: 

British- American Convention S8 

Panaman-American Convention 91 

Little Corn Island, Nicaraguan leases - 33 

Logs, aircraft (see Aircraft, logs). 

London : 

Convention for safety of life at sea, 1914 99 

Declaration of 1909 98, 113, 142, 143, 145, 146, 150 

International Radio-Telegraphic Convention 1912 98 

Mandates 151 

Class " C ", Japanese declaration 82 

Classes 61 

Declaration as to 2& 

Island of Yap 74 

United States consent 75 

League of Nations Covenant 61 

Nauru 80 

Ruanda-Urundi 67 

United States consent 71 

Syria and Lebanon 61 

Terms 62 

United States consent 66 

Maps, aeronautical 162 

Marginal air belt 153 

Marine miles, territorial waters : 

British-American Liquor Smuggling Convention 88 

Panaman-American Liquor Smuggling Convention 92 

Maritime : 

Juridiction 152 

Warfare — 

Geneva Convention 98 

Hague Convention 1907 98, 132 

Marks : 

Aircraft (see Aircraft, marks). 

Geneva Convention 121 

On monuments 324 

Means at its disposal, neutral Government 133, 135 

Means of war : 

Bullets : Incendiary, tracer 117 

Projectiles : Explosive, incendiary, tracer 117 

Merchant ships: 

Preparations for warlike armaments 5 

Radio stations on neutral 102 

Stiffening of decks 6 

Message logs, examination of 102 

Messages : 

Of distress 106 

Radio (see Radio). 

Meteorological : 

Investigations 162 

Station, Spitsbergen 48 



184 INDEX 

Military : 

Aircraft (see Aircraft, military). P age 

Depots 120 

Establishments 120 

Aaland Islands 58 

Objective 120 

Bombardment 121 

Operations, vicinity of 127, 128 

Sanctions (see Geneva Protocol). 

Supplies 120 

Mining regulations, Spitsbergen 49 

Mobile stations 101 

Monuments, historic, bombardment of 122. 123, 124 

Most-favored-nation treatment, aircraft 159 

Munitions, Central American exportation 21 

National guard, Central American 20 

Nationality of aircraft (see Aircraft, nationality). 
Nationals : 

Rights of, Spitsbergen 49 

United States in former German islands 78 

Nations, law of 151 

Nauru, mandate 80 

Naval : 

Aircraft, definition . 151 

Armament, Limitation of, Washington Treaty 1922 1 

Bombardment Convention 1907 120, 121 

Bases — 

Spitsbergen 50 

Status quo 6 

Sanctions (see Geneva Protocol). 

Navigation, Air Convention 1919 108, 147 

Neutral : 

Aircraft (see Aircraft, neutral). 

Duties 131 

Jurisdiction 152 

Obligations 132 

Radio 101 

Ports, admission to 131 

Responsibility 136 

Rights and Duties, Hague Convention 1907 98 

Territory — 

A base 132 

Observation above 135, 136 

Radio stations in 102 

Use of force 136 

Zone, Aaland Islands 58 

Neutralisation, Aaland Islands 56 

Neutrality : 

Convention, Land War 97, 100 

Of zone, Aaland Islands 59 

New construction 4, 5, 6 

Aircraft carriers 6 

Armament 6 

Displacement 6 



INDEX 185 

Nicaraguan : Pa «* 

Canal rights **2 

Canal Route, Convention 31 

Ratification 33 

Leases — 

Great Corn Island 33 

Gulf of Fonseca naval base 33 

Little Corn Island 33 

Payment 33 

Night marks, aircraft i22 

North Dakota, U. S. S 3 

Norway : 

Air Navigation Convention with Sweden 1923 154 

Sovereignty over Spitsbergen 47 

Noxious gases, Commission of Jurists Report 96 

Objectives, military 120, 121 

Observation, aerial 135, 136 

Observers, non-military aircraft 115 

Opening of Hostilities, Convention 114 

Operations : 

Base of 134 

Radio 100 

Operator, radio, liability of 107 

Pacific Ocean : 

Former German Islands in North, Convention 73 

Former German Possessions in South 79 

Insular Possessions and Dominions — 

Treaty 23 

Supplementary agreement 28 

Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (see Geneva Protocol). 

Panaman-American Liquor Smuggling Convention 91 

Papers, aircraft (see Aircraft, papers). 

Parachute, airmen in 118 

Passage,! freedom of, air 113, 126 

Passengers, aircraft 128, 129, 130 

Patents : 

Danish West Indies 40 

Rights, aircraft 159 

Permanent Court of Arbitration 153 

Permanent Court of International Justice 103, 153, 163, 173 

Compulsory jurisdiction of 165 

Personnel, aircraft (see Aircraft, personnel). 
Persons : 

Military authority over 125 

On board aircraft placed in safety 149, 150 

Photographic apparatus, aircraft carriage of 160 

Poisons, Central American Convention 21 

Ports, admission to neutral 131 

Postal service, aircraft 109, 110 

Prisoners of war, aircraft 128, 129, 130 

Privateers 114 

Prize court, aircraft 110, 127, 148, 150 

Projectiles, explosive (see Means of war). 

Propaganda ; 118 

57920—26 13 



186 INDEX 

Property : P age 

Church, provisos in Danish West Indies Convention 42 

Danish West Indies 39, 40 

Ownership, Spitsbergen 49 

Private, immunity '.. 137 

Rights, Island of Yap 76 

Protection : 

Anti-air attack 12 

Blister 12 

Bulge 12 

Zones 123, 124 

Protectorate 151 

Protocol, Geneva (see Geneva Protocol). 

Radio : 

Aircraft— 157, 158, 162 

Censorship . 101 

Commission of Jurists report 9S-108 

Signing 154 

Communication, Island of Yap 76 

Control of 97, 146 

Erection . 100 

Examination of message log 102 

Liability for use of 101 

Messages 105 

Neutral obligations 101 

Operation 100 

Operator, liability of I 107 

Prohibition 100 

Regulation 100,104 

Area 104 

Interference 104 

Time 104 

Spitsbergen 48 

Station 107 

Bombardment of 107 

Mobile 101 

On land , 102 

On neutral aircraft 102 

On neutral merchant vessels 102 

On neutral territory 102 

Use of „ , 99 

Commission of Jurists report limited to 97 

Zone of silence 107 

Radio-goniometric station 107 

Radio-telegraph {see Radio). 

Radio-telegraphic : 

Communication 76 

International Convention, London, 1912 98,99 

Radio-telephonic station 107 

Reconnaissance, aircraft 125 

Reconversion 5 

Replacement : 

Aircraft carriers 4 

Rules for 11 

Tonnage, total capital ship 3 



INDEX 187 

Page 

Requisition, aircraft ■ 126 

Right to a Flag, Declaration 83 

Risk: 

Of being fired upon 128, 143 

Of capture 1° 3 > i28 

Routing, aircraft (see Aircraft, routing). 

Ruanda-Urundi mandate : 

Treaty and protocol 67 

United States consent "1 

Russian rights, Spitsbergen 50 

Safety : 

Of life at sea, Convention, London, 1914 09 

Of navigation, messages of distress 106 

Of persons on board aircraft 149, 150 

Sale of vessel of war — 6 

Salvage, aircraft 180 

Sanctions (see Geneva Protocol). 

Scrapping 5 

Rules for 9 

Tables — 

British Empire - 13 

France 13 

Italy 14 

Japan 14 

United States _ 12 

Sea-coast, States having no 83 

Seizure : 

Of texts, radio messages 105 

Of vessels . 89, 92 

Ships : 

Capital . 3 

Change of course 104 

Smuggling of Intoxicating Liquors : 

British-American Convention . 88-91 

Claims 90 

Examination of vessels 89 

Limits of distance 89 

Penalties 89 

Seizure 89 

Termination 90 

Territorial waters . 88 

Panaman-American Convention 91-95 

Claims 93 

Examination of vessels 92 

Limits of distance 92 

Penalties 93 

Seizure 92 

Termination 94 

Territorial waters . 92 

Sovereignty : 

Air space 155 

Norway over Spitsbergen 47 



188 INDEX 

Spitsbergen : p aga 

Access and entry 47 

Claims 49,51 

Coasting trade 43 

Expropriation 49 

Flora and fauna preservation 47 

Fortification 50 

Meteorological station 48 

Mining regulations 49 

Naval base 50 

Occupiers of land 47 

Radio (wireless telegraphy) 48 

Rights- 
Fishing and hunting 47 

Nationals 49 

Property ownership 49 

Russian 50 

Scientific investigations 49 

Sovereignty of Norway 47 

Taxes 49 

Traffic 48 

Treaty 45-51 

Annex 51-55 

Ratifications . 50 

Standard displacement 3, 15 

Standing army, Central America 20 

State-owned lines, aircraft 142 

Status quo : 

Fortifications 6 

Insular possessions 6 

Naval bases 6 

St. Petersburg International Telegraph Convention, 1875 96, 98 

Submarines excluded from Commission of Jurists report 98 

Submarines and aircraft 139 

Surface warships and aircraft 138 

Sweden-Norway Air Navigation Convention, 1923 154 

Syria and the Lebanon Mandate Convention 61 

Terms 62 

United States consent 66 

Telegraph Convention, International, St. Petersburg, 1875 96, 98 

Territory : 

Leased 151 

Neutral — 

Observation above 135, 136 

Radio stations on 102 

Threatened attack, exception to Central American Treaty 21 

Thunderer, H. M. S 3 

Tonnage, aircraft carrier 4 

Transfer : 

Aircraft 146 

Vessel of war 6 

Transit, contraband - 134 



INDEX 189 

Page 

Transmission of intelligence, aircraft 115 

Types of aircraft 108 

United States: 

Capital ships retained by 7 

Consent to mandate — 

Island of Yap 75 

Ruanda-Urundi 71 

Syria and the Lebanon 66 

Nationals and vessels in visit to former German islands — _ 78 

Unneutral service : 

Aircraft 143 

Radio 105 

Use of construction for non-Contracting Power 6 

Vessels : 

Aircraft on board 132 

Duration of liability 102 

Examination of 89, 92 

Liability to capture 102 

Message log, examination of 102 

Public 104 

Radio stations on neutral merchant 102 

Seizure . 89,92 

United States in visit to former German islands 78 

War- 
Central American 21 

Gift, sale, transfer 6 

Violation of rules, air 153 

Visit, aircraft 109, 160 

Visit and search, aircraft (see Aircraft, visit and search). 

Visite sur place 137 

War: 

Aircraft 21, 137, 163 

Knowledge, aircraft 113 

Land, Neutrality Convention 97, 100 

Material, neutral supply 134 

Radio, control in time of 97 

Vessels, Central American 21 

Warfare : 

Aerial 97,108 

Land Regulations 120, 121, 124, 126, 130, 151 

Rules of, Report, Commission of Jurists 96 

Warlike armaments, preparations in merchant ships 5 

Warships, surface 138 

Waters, territorial 88,92, 152, 153 

West Indies, Danish, Convention of Cession 35 

West Virginia, U. S. S 3 

Wireless (see Radio). 

Yap, island of, Mandate Convention 73-89 

Application of treaties 76 

Cable 1 76 

Communication privileges 76 

Property rights 76 



190 INDEX 

Yap, inland of, Mandate Convention — Continued. Pagi 

Radio-telegraphic communication 76 

Ratification 77 

Religion in 76 

Report : 76 

United States consent ___: 75 

Zones : 

Demilitarized (see Geneva Protocol). 

Exempt from bombardment 122 

Of silence, radio 107 

Protected - 123,134 

c